I’m actually arguing *for* numbers in the ToC of the PDF version because I know it gets turned into dead trees. If that helps those that want/need to used page number to navigate electronic versions that is fine. Page numbers in the HTML version don’t make sense as there is only one page. We don’t currently produce a multi-page HTML version and there is no discussion of what a multi-page version would look like. Navigation in HTML is intrinsically by following links. The TXT version needs to go back to the old format for page numbers to be useful. At the I-D stage page numbers are useful because people send diffs and you need to context to get to the right place in the .xml. Mark > On 29 Oct 2020, at 11:55, Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Mark, > > I think we are solidly into "your way is not my way but your way is okay" > territory here. Just because you like the clickable-link ToC and it works > great for you does not meen that everyone else has to prefer it, too. > If John is happy with "dumb" text, what difference does it make to you? > > -Ben > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 11:30:53AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote: >> John, with electronic versions the ToC *works* for PDF and HTML. >> >> For dead trees versions the ToC does not work efficiently regardless >> of the original form. Binary searches through a stack of pages is >> not efficient. The plain text version also has this issue in the >> electronic version. >> >> The point of a ToC is to have list of the sections *and* to be able >> to get to the relevant section easily. When you can’t click on a link >> you need page numbers especially as we have unnumbered sections. >> >> One shouldn’t have to memorise the section names *and* order in the ToC >> to find something in a dead tree version. -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@xxxxxxx
