[rfc-i] Pagination requirements

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Fri May 25 09:29:19 PDT 2012

On May 25, 2012, at 9:25 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> On 2012-05-25 17:16, Joe Touch wrote:
>> ...
>> This is interesting academically, but if this isn't what is mostly used (and hasn't been for a long time, AFAICT), why *introduce* it as a format requirement?
>> We should *minimize* the requirements, to reduce risk for the future.
>> I agree it would be nice to retain the entire doc structure for future authors, but other than authorship - which can be VERY easily re-formatted in a modern editor - there doesn't seem to be necessary utility to containment tagging.
>> ...
> Could you explain the *advantage* of losing the containment?

Ability to use tools that cannot generate it (e.g., Word) and/or cannot successfully maintain it, (which is what I've generally found for XML WYSIWYG).

It's not a loss; it's not a necessary part of navigational markup.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list