On 27 Oct 2020, at 21:49, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
Jim,
Open any recent HTML RFC (such as
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8905.html) and take a look at the
frame
to the right of the text (on a phone browser, the TOC is a button at
the
top of the screen).
Thanks, John and Andy, for pointing that out. That’s what I get for
(1) using a narrow browser window and (2) looking for the TOC in exactly
the same place, so I didn’t see the Table of Contents thing in the
upper right corner.
-Jim
Cheers,
Andy
On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 7:57 PM Jim Fenton <fenton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
[Yikes, this discussion is getting crossposted everywhere, it seems.
I’ll keep it brief]
On 27 Oct 2020, at 16:36, David Noveck wrote:
The issue comes up with PDF files. Currently, you get page numbers
together with a TOC that has no page numbers. I'm OK with a no-TXT
option
but I have a problem with a not-usefully-printable option for RFCs.
When RFC 8689 was about to be published about a year ago, I had a
chat
with the staff at the RFC Editor table in Singapore about this. It
seemed a little strange to have a table of contents without page
numbers, but if some people are reading HTML versions, PDF versions,
and
TXT versions, the pagination is different anyway (and nonexistent for
HTML) so trying to reference something by page number is problematic.
References should be to section numbers, and if sections are so big
that
it’s hard to find some text there, the author should really think
about structuring the document with smaller subsections.
What does seem strange (and maybe it has changed in the past year) is
that the plain text and PDF versions have tables of contents, and the
html version does not. I would like for the html version to have a
table
of contents with links to anchors for each section.
-Jim
On Tue, Oct 27, 2020, 6:51 PM Phillip Hallam-Baker
<phill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Whooaah there...
What is the status of this poll? I am all for moving from the
subjective
consensus model in which certain parties get a veto because their
opinions
are considered weightier than the rest of us. Objective measures of
consensus are good. But is this an official poll? What does it
mean?
But of course, as John K. pointed out, this is not actually an IETF
process. Only of course it is in every meaningful sense except
insofar as
IETF rules of the road apply.
Page numbers is not the hill I would choose to die on here. They
don't
work in HTML and the whole point of this process is that the TXT
documents
reflect very badly on the IETF as an organization. It spoke of an
organization that is stuck in the 1960s ranting on about how vinyl
is
better than CD.
There are serious issues with the new format. Not least the fact
that
SVG
is not actually supported. The supported format is SVG/Tiny which
is
an
obsolete format originally proposed back in the WAP days as a means
of
crippling the spec to fit the capabilities of the devices back
before
Steve
Jobs showed us an iPhone for the first time. There are no tools
that
produce SVG/Tiny, not even GOAT - I had to modify the source code
to
comply.
I don't mind retooling to support an improved specification. Having
to
retool to support an obsolete one is nonsense.
Anyway, how about as a compromise, authors can opt to suppress
generation
of the TXT version so that the page number issue doesn't come up at
all?
