It seems that lately we've been wasting a lot of time because some people (that would be me) assume everybody is familiar with the current vocabulary and the tools around it, while others ... don't.

The result is that sometimes it's hard to understand what the other party is trying to say, because many things look entirely different if you've been doing them for so long.

I'm not sure what the best way to resolve this, but it would be *really* helpful if people would look at what's possible today. Good examples are (surprise) documents I authored, such as RFC 5987:

<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc5987.html>

<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc5987.xml>

<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5987>

The XML version does use extensions (which were used when generating the HTML), but there's a migration step to standard xml2rfc, from which the published RFC was generated.

The extensions are described in <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2629xslt/rfc2629xslt.html>.

Looking at anchor generation...:

The XML input has

  <section title="Introduction" anchor="introduction">

The generated HTML has (somewhat simplified):

      <div id="introduction">
         <h1 id="rfc.section.1">
            <a href="#rfc.section.1">1.</a> <a href="#introduction">Introduction</a>
         </h1>
      ...

So neither section numbers nor the auto-generated section anchors appear in the source file.