[rfc-i] Requirement for "clear printing"

Joel M. Halpern jmh at joelhalpern.com
Mon Feb 18 20:48:37 PST 2013


I think one of the keys is that many o us consider Section number to 
typically be finer grained than page numbers.  Thus arguing for page 
numbers because section numbers are to coarse grained  does not work for us.

Yours,
Joel

On 2/18/2013 11:15 PM, Nico Williams wrote:
> 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?
>>
>> Nico,
>>
>> 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:
>
> 2.1.3.  Pagination
>
>     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.
>
> Nico
> --
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list