[rfc-i] Requirement for "consistent printing"

Martin Rex mrex at sap.com
Thu Feb 21 02:56:17 PST 2013


Julian Reschke wrote:
>
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >
> > On 20/02/2013 19:25, Nico Williams wrote:
> >> Martin, no one has said you should use section numbers alone.  We've
> >> been saying "section number and paragraph number".  What's wrong with
> >> that?
> >
> > What is the meaning of "paragraph" in a MIB module? I think Martin
> > is absolutely correct for a large MIB module, although for normal text
> > one can manage with references like "the 13th paragraph in section 1.2.3",
> > although it's quite clumsy.
> 
> http://bla/rfcnnnn.html#sec-1.2.3.p.13
> 
> Or, in a MIB module
> 
> http://bla/rfcnnnn.html#mib.foobar
> 
> Just make the author assign usable anchors.


The beauty of http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfcNNNN.html and
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-.....-NN is that anchors
work without any authors having to create and maintain anchors.
And they still work on printouts.

Counting paragraphs works resonably only for small numbers (single digit)
and for prose text, but fails when lists, enumerations, formulas and
stuff like that is inserted -- neither for rfcmarkup doing heuristics
nor for humans doing heuristics on the printout.


Document structure that is relevant, ought to be easily recognizable
(for simple scripts like rfcmarkup as well as for humans looking at
 a printout).  And as soon as it easily recognizable, one should no
longer have to type or maintain that data.


Using references that require meta-data and a non-trivial piece of software
to find and show the correct spot would be at least as bad as using
bare page numbers.


-Martin


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list