[rfc-i] Pagination requirements

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Fri May 25 09:46:22 PDT 2012


On 2012-05-25 18:33, Joe Touch wrote:
>
> On May 25, 2012, at 9:27 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>
>> Well, not having containment will make it much much harder to extract meaningful information, such as a page range for an index entry.
>
> Everyone keeps arguing we don't need page numbers anyway. I agree to that - provided section numbers can be put on printout headers or footers.
>
>> I still don't understand what problems is solved by flattening the structure.
>
> HTML is a markup language, not a structure language. That's why HTML might be reasonable as the canonical (internal) format for archival purposes.

Actually, it's full of structural tags; some new (<section>, <article>, 
...), some old (<div>).

So you can generate HTML that uses containment with respect to sections, 
and rfc2629.xslt does so.

> XML is a structural language, which is *much* more than we need, and not ready for prime-time long-term use IMO. It cannot be easily edited or generated by modern word processors as far as I've seen.

This is kind of misleading. XML is a framework for markup languages, and 
one of these is XHTML, which has exactly the same level of abstraction 
and structure as HTML. People who define new XML based languages can 
device what level of structure they want; for instance, have a look at 
XSL-FO.

Best regards, Julian


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list