[rfc-i] What the text version is used for (was Re: The <tt> train wreck)
daedulus at btconnect.com
Mon Aug 23 04:51:54 PDT 2021
On 22/08/2021 21:36, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 23-Aug-21 07:39, tom petch wrote:
>> On 21/08/2021 22:33, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> On 22-Aug-21 05:55, Robert Sparks wrote:
>>> It's easy enough to cite details by section number or by URL
>>> (even figures, e.g. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8989#venn1).
>>> So losing page numbers, a feature of .txt that I've often seen
>>> mentioned, seems unimportant. This applies to drafts as much
>>> as to RFCs.
>> May be but when the section spans what would be 50 pages were there to
>> be pages, then I find it somewhat difficult, especially when the same
>> text e.g. 'leaf name', appears in multiple places. I refer, of course,
>> to YANG modules. Perhaps YANG version 2.1 will introduce the concept of
> Shouldn't we be handling YANG modules differently, i.e. using some
> system for handling diffs and issues in code? Handling them as if
> they are English text make no sense.
Yes! Most of the languages I have dealt with have the concept of
sequence numbers, so that when you drop the card deck on the floor, you
can sort it back into order, but that is now history! I note that some
AD reviews use line numbers for their comments, I think generated by ID
The better authors of YANG, like the better authors of other languages,
make extensive use of comments which can then be used for identifying
'sections' (as well as providing a narrative that can be read to get an
overview of the module). Perhaps that needs formalising.
>> Tom Petch
>>> The only use I have made of .txt on recent drafts is to run rfcdiff.
>>> IMHO, rfcdiff is an essential tool for document development.
>>> I can't see anything else that amounts to a need.
>>> rfc-interest mailing list
>>> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest