Hi John, On 27-Oct-20 13:49, John C Klensin wrote: > > > --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 And if you were to seek out my comments in June 2014, you'd see that my view was that all I really wanted was pagination using Form Feed characters. Where it got tricky, IMHO, is when PDF was added in as a supported presentation format, because PDF is intrinsically paginated (OK, somebody may tell me that isn't strictly true, but it seems to be true in practice). So whether the page numbers are printed or not, they are *there* in PDF. > (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. If running code shows that there are problems with the current format as defined in RFC7994, then we should certainly revisit the claimed consensus. Unlike the canonical XML of an RFC, the presentation format isn't frozen, afaik. Regards Brian
