[rfc-i] Playing with formats
ynir at checkpoint.com
Sun Feb 17 02:11:31 PST 2013
Neither of your formats has page numbers anywhere. This makes finding the reference in a printed version particularly difficult. Even using a PDF reader, you're relying on an indication in the reader GUI. This is sometimes missing and even when it's there, it is easy to get it wrong, because the number in the GUI changes at some arbitrary point when the end of one page and the start of another page are both visible.
On the other hand, adding footers with page numbers means you have to remove those footers when cutting and pasting, just like today.
Either way, if someone references something in page 16, everyone who uses another, non-paginated format (like your htm version) has to open the paginated version to figure out what the reference is about.
References by section number, paragraph number and/or figure number translate well to all versions. One famous book that came out in several formats has Moses parting the sea on page 39. Yet you won't see anyone referencing it like that. People manage to quote and reference the Bible quite well without a paginated canonical form, simply by using chapter and verse. This allows people to use different editions, and even translations of the bible. I think a system like that would work better for us that tying us to a paper-based format.
 yes, I know that there is more than one tradition for partitioning Bible books into chapter and verse.
On Feb 17, 2013, at 11:18 AM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>
> I think we need to prototype what we are talking about.
More information about the rfc-interest