[rfc-i] Pagination requirements

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Fri May 25 08:04:12 PDT 2012


On May 24, 2012, at 11:54 PM, Martin J. Dürst wrote:

> On 2012/05/25 7:16, Joe Hildebrand wrote:
>> On 5/24/12 3:04 PM, "Joe Touch"<touch at isi.edu>  wrote:
>> 
>>> As Iljitsch noted, e.g., the current XML uses nested tags that Word has
>>> trouble generating. If we look more at what kind of stuff Word DOES
>>> generate, that's a hint at what might be feasible in Word.
>> 
>> It's a reasonable discussion to have whether sections contain sections, or
>> whether we just use the heading number (h1-h6) to intuit relationships.  I
>> don't have a strong preference.  The CSS is probably a *little* easier with
>> containing, but it's doable either way.
> 
> It would be a pity if we lost containment.

Why?

I think we need to be very relaxed in our requirements for markup. I would expect - at most:

- front matter (title, authors, date, RFC number)
- section tags (as jump targets)
- figure/table tags
- reference tags
- internal references to the above should point to those tags

I don't see a reason for *requiring* any other markings - including, and especially, "containment" markings.

If anyone has a rationale for *needing* that, please explain (where I don't think "markup purity" is sufficient, BTW).

Joe


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list