[rfc-i] Requirement for "clear printing"
nico at cryptonector.com
Mon Feb 18 20:15:19 PST 2013
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 8:41 PM, RJ Atkinson <rja.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
> Earlier, Nico Williams wrote:
>> It's your term, no?
> No. It is not my term.
> It is Bernard Aboba's term.
Oh, so sorry I missed that. And it's not even his term! It appears
in the I-D in the following text:
Arguments for continuing the use of discrete pages within RFCs:
* Ease of reference and clear printing; referring to section
numbers is too coarse a method.
No definition is given. Bernard Aboba's issue was just that.
> Curiously, and quite confusingly, his earlier post
> raised no objections at all, but my post supporting
> his post begat this thread.
It's one of those random things, I guess.
In any case, we lack a definition, but we can condense a reasonable
definition from your and others' comments in this thread. It seems
that "clear printing" in that text means "stable page numbering". But
still, that's an odd thing for "clear printing" to mean. I recommend
wordsmithing that text.
Also, we have a clear difference of opinion regarding stable page
numbering. Some insist on it for at least some output formats, and
some do not want stable page numbering to be a requirement if that
conflicts with other requirements.
More information about the rfc-interest