[rfc-i] Pagination requirements

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Fri May 25 19:02:19 PDT 2012



On May 25, 2012, at 5:58 PM, Joe Hildebrand <jhildebr at cisco.com> wrote:

>> 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.

That's trivial in general using diff and search. It has nothing to do with containment unless containment is retained across reuses - which it likely will not be. 

Joe


> 
> 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