[rfc-i] Pagination requirements

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Tue May 15 08:47:55 PDT 2012

On 2012-05-15 15:47, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On May 14, 2012, at 11:13 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> Page length is a similar issue but not nearly as problematic, because jumping over some headers/footers is annoying, but doesn't get in the way of readability
>> Indeed. And since we allow internal page references, getting rid of
>> page numbers is not an option.
> Why are page references so much better than section references that we need to have pages in the canonical format? In an unpaginated document, "the third paragraph of section 3.2" is more likely to be definitive than "the third paragraph on page 17", given that page 17 has a high likelihood of starting with a partial paragraph. In such a case, is the "third paragraph on page 17" the third text chunk or the fourth?

This is of course why some legal documents have every paragraph
numbered individually. Anyway, maybe I'm too rooted in the Gutenberg
revolution, but the idea of archival documents, which might still
be relevant 50 years from now, not having a canonical pagination
seems very strange to me. I think it makes it significantly
harder to find your way round a document, especially a large one.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list