[rfc-i] Pagination requirements
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Fri May 25 09:41:33 PDT 2012
On 2012-05-25 18:29, Joe Touch wrote:
> On May 25, 2012, at 9:25 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> On 2012-05-25 17:16, Joe Touch wrote:
>>> This is interesting academically, but if this isn't what is mostly used (and hasn't been for a long time, AFAICT), why *introduce* it as a format requirement?
>>> We should *minimize* the requirements, to reduce risk for the future.
>>> I agree it would be nice to retain the entire doc structure for future authors, but other than authorship - which can be VERY easily re-formatted in a modern editor - there doesn't seem to be necessary utility to containment tagging.
>> Could you explain the *advantage* of losing the containment?
> Ability to use tools that cannot generate it (e.g., Word) and/or cannot successfully maintain it, (which is what I've generally found for XML WYSIWYG).
> It's not a loss; it's not a necessary part of navigational markup.
Well, you need the structure to generate the section numbers, one way or
If the input format is flat, we'll need to trust the author that the
section numbers are actually correct, which introduces a small risk of
If the requirement is to use tools that produce flat output, then one
answer could be to post-process it.
Best regards, Julian
More information about the rfc-interest