[rfc-i] Pagination requirements

Joe Hildebrand jhildebr at cisco.com
Fri May 25 17:58:11 PDT 2012

>From the canonical format (hand-waving over the differences between that and
the submission format for the second, please), I'd like to be able to
extract the security considerations, so I can compare the different
considerations, look for ideas, and track the lineage of text that has been
borrowed for reuse.

That's trivial with containment.

On 5/25/12 4:34 PM, "Joe Touch" <touch at isi.edu> wrote:

> Paging around in the author source is a role for that format, which may not be
> the same as the submission format.
> I described a need for tags in the submission format. I have yet to hear a
> need for section containment - again, in the submission format.
> Joe
> On May 25, 2012, at 3:10 PM, Martin Rex <mrex at sap.com> wrote:
>> Joe Touch wrote:
>>> Joe Hildebrand <jhildebr at cisco.com>
>>>> Without containment, moving stuff around is going to be a PITA.
>>> You are confusing an editing requirement with a marking
>>> requirement needed for user navigation.
>> While automatic and fully dynamic section numbering might help
>> the chaotic creative processes of some authors, it is not a
>> necessary prerequisite for producing I-Ds or RFCs for everyone.
>> While it may take slightly more typing when doing major document
>> restructuring, having explicit section numbers spelled out in the
>> source (as is currently necessary with NRoffEdit) can similarily
>> help in navigation while paging around in the authoring source.
>> If being extra chaotic causes extra work, one tends to plan ahead
>> a little more, and at least for some creative minds, that little
>> extra planning may well pay off (it does for me).
>> But I'm also no fan of pathologically small sections
>> (I would not want my specification to look like a powerpoint).
>> -Martin

Joe Hildebrand

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list