[rfc-i] Pagination requirements
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Fri May 25 08:11:38 PDT 2012
On 2012-05-25 17:04, Joe Touch wrote:
> 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.
> 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).
Containment is not only simpler to process, it also ensures on the
source level that the document structure makes sense.
I recommend you google for "HTML outline algorithm" for attempts to
extract a usable section tree from an HTML document.
Best regards, Julian
More information about the rfc-interest