[rfc-i] Requirement for "clear printing"

Joel M. Halpern jmh at joelhalpern.com
Mon Feb 18 20:48:37 PST 2013

I think one of the keys is that many o us consider Section number to 
typically be finer grained than page numbers.  Thus arguing for page 
numbers because section numbers are to coarse grained  does not work for us.


On 2/18/2013 11:15 PM, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 8:41 PM, RJ Atkinson <rja.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Earlier, Nico Williams wrote:
>>> It's your term, no?
>> Nico,
>> No.  It is not my term.
>> It is Bernard Aboba's term.
> Oh, so sorry I missed that.  And it's not even his term!  It appears
> in the I-D in the following text:
> 2.1.3.  Pagination
>     Arguments for continuing the use of discrete pages within RFCs:
>        *  Ease of reference and clear printing; referring to section
>           numbers is too coarse a method.
> No definition is given.  Bernard Aboba's issue was just that.
>> Curiously, and quite confusingly, his earlier post
>> raised no objections at all, but my post supporting
>> his post begat this thread.
> It's one of those random things, I guess.
> In any case, we lack a definition, but we can condense a reasonable
> definition from your and others' comments in this thread.  It seems
> that "clear printing" in that text means "stable page numbering".  But
> still, that's an odd thing for "clear printing" to mean.  I recommend
> wordsmithing that text.
> Also, we have a clear difference of opinion regarding stable page
> numbering.  Some insist on it for at least some output formats, and
> some do not want stable page numbering to be a requirement if that
> conflicts with other requirements.
> Nico
> --
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list