[rfc-i] Pagination requirements

Andrew Sullivan ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
Fri May 25 12:29:22 PDT 2012


On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 12:05:13PM -0700, Joe Touch wrote:
> 
> Use h3 for the second heading.  
> 
> Nested containment levels rad needed only when the heading labels are unspecified. 

Doesn't that mean that you need to know the relationship between
sections (and keep track of it)?  For instance, if I have

    <section title="foo">
        <t>stuff</t>
    </section>

    <secton title="bar">
        <t>otherstuff</t>
    </section>

    <section title="baz">
        <t>thirdstuff</t>
    </section>

and it turns out that bar is really a subspecies of foo, I can just do
this:

    <section title="foo">
        <t>stuff</t>

    <secton title="bar">
        <t>otherstuff</t>
    </section>

    </section>
    
    <section title="baz">
        <t>thirdstuff</t>
    </section>

and it all works.  If I have to know while I'm writing what level I'm
coping with, then I'm stuck maintaining what is really formatting
information in my head along with the logical structure I need to be
concentrating on.  (In this example, it's trivial.  In a large
document where a bunch of sections get moved around during
development, the work is much more involved and more likely to be done
incorrectly at some point.)

To me, that is a step backwards.  If we have to do it in order to
get around the line printer format, I guess I could find a way to live
with it; but it sure seems like a shame to me.  Approximately the only
thing I like about the xml2rfc approach is this feature.

Best,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list