[rfc-i] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-flanagan-plaintext-00.txt

Thomas Clausen ietf at thomasclausen.org
Tue Jun 24 05:14:42 PDT 2014


On Jun 24, 2014, at 14:02, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:

> On 2014-06-24 13:41, Thomas Clausen wrote:
>> That does, if you will excuse my violent disagreement, appear like an enormous step backwards in usability: both when writing a specification, when writing an implementation from a specification (especially if actually commenting code), or when reviewing a specification for somebody else, the ability to reference “Page XX line Y” is rather convenient, almost necessary — especially, when collaborating with folks using different output media (of which paper remains an important one, for various reasons….)
>> 
>> I haven’t printed an RFC or an I-D in a decade - and yet, find both page numbers and line numbers to be paramount.
>> 
>> With my various set of co-authors, while I do *try* to point to “enumerated sections”, we almost always end up “counting lines on a page” at some point in time. I note that other SDOs actually have printed line-numbers in the margin of (at least, their working/intermediate) documents.
> 
> My experience is the opposite; I always end up linking to section numbers or paragraphs.
> 

Excellent. That goes to show, then, that I was right to not propose “let’s remove section numbers” as a solution. 

I had a hunch that they were useful for someone, and I didn’t want to step on those “someones”, even though I personally use page numbers much, much more.

>> While I have deep respect for the “other goals” that you cite, and I agree that we should support different output devices, I respectfully submit that that has nothing to do with the argument being made.
>> 
>> I also respectfully submit that those “other goals” perhaps are given too high a priority here, and I wonder who set those priorities?
> 
> You may want to read <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6949> which was published over a year ago, and which represents the outcome of a very long discussion.

Thanks, I shall. I appreciate that pointer. I fell onto this list by accident, and so I may not have seen all that has happened, and am not sure that I saw that very long discussion. 

Not having read that document yet, if RFC6949 states “we MUST remove page numbers from RFCs” then I’d submit that somebody needs to — and, rather urgently — publish an “RFC6949 considered harmful” RFC.

Thomas

> Best regards, Julian
> 



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list