--On Tuesday, October 27, 2020 12:51 +1300 Brian E Carpenter
<brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Let me retract "useless". What really bothers me is that page
> numbers are actively misleading in the new format. I think
> that became true the moment a consensus appeared that the
> preferred presentation format was HTML with flowed text.
Brian,
Assume, temporarily and for purposes of discussion, that we
agree about that "actively misleading" part. Then either:
* We should remove the page numbers from the PDF file (if they
are "actively misleading" in the text, then they are at least as
actively misleading in the PDF and put the pagination plus
headers and footers back into the text form.
or
* We should remove the page numbers and headers and footers from
the PDF and than paginate the text form.
Otherwise, I find it very difficult to argue that there is any
sort of principle here other than "punish those who insist on
being dependent on the text form" and maybe even "punish them
sufficiently that they repent of their sins and switch over to
HTML".
FWIW, I assume that everyone who prefers the paginated text form
has their own set of priorities. For me, it would be
pagination; headers and footers with title, author, and date;
and only then page numbering (which I tend to use only for
document lengths and the occasional indexed document). So, if
the goal was to suppress page numbers in the text form as
useless or worse, from my personal standpoint the baby went out
with the bathwater.
Apologies, but because of how those long-ago discussions were
handled -- and then claimed to represent community consensus --
I've got a really bad attitude on this issue.
best,
john
