[rfc-i] What the text version is used for (was Re: The <tt> train wreck)

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Mon Aug 23 05:31:16 PDT 2021

Am 23.08.2021 um 13:51 schrieb tom petch:
> 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:
>>>> <snip>
>>> <snip>
>>>> 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
>>> sections.
>> 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
> nits.
> 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.
> ...

Would adding optional line numbers to artwork/sourcecode help?

Best regards, Julian

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list