[rfc-i] Pagination requirements
jhildebr at cisco.com
Fri May 25 12:36:44 PDT 2012
On 5/25/12 1:05 PM, "Joe Touch" <touch at isi.edu> wrote
>> I don't see how you'd guarantee that using a form without containment,
> Use h3 for the second heading.
> Nested containment levels rad needed only when the heading labels are
>> because it seems to me that the right numbering for an uncontained
>> format is ambiguous
I just spent a few minutes on the whiteboard thinking about this. I
couldn't come up with an ambiguous case, as long as you didn't skip levels.
That's not to say I prefer the flat approach, since with containment, it's
much easier for tooling to reorder sections. For example, I'd like to
ensure that the security considerations comes before iana considerations.
With containment, this is a simple:
// pull the security div out of the doc, but hold on to it
var sec = $("div#security").detach();
// insert the security div right before the iana div
Without containment, moving stuff around is going to be a PITA. Yes, it's
just code, but I think I'd rather write the code to hoist incorrectly
contained headings into the proper section, which seems pretty
straightforward to me: search up the doc for the first heading of the next
lowest number, and move the incorrect section to the end of that container.
More information about the rfc-interest