Hi Julian, on 2006-06-15 21:42 Julian Reschke said the following: > Henrik Levkowetz schrieb: >> ... >> Agreed. Thinking some more about this, the lack of inter-document >> links seem to be a complaint that I hear much more often than the >> lack of good graphics support. > > ... > > I was just thinking about how I'm using RFCs day to day. Answer: usually > I don't use the ASCII versions at all. Instead, I try to obtain XML > (RFC2629) versions of them, produce HTML, and use that instead > (collected at: <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/>). > > Why? > > - Readability > - Navigation > - Ability to reference a particular section or paragraph with a URL > > ...and so on. Agreed. And this is of course also the reason why I went to the effort of writing and setting up the htmlization mechanism on tools.ietf.org: Accessing, for any RFC or draft, its name under http://tools.ietf.org/html/ will give you a htmlized version, with at least rudimentary links and section anchors. Example: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4510#section-1 And http://tools.ietf.org/rfc/index gives you a htmlized index pointing to htmlized versions of the RFCs. It's not as good as having the standard format provide links natively, though. I wish it was totally unnecessary. Regards, Henrik _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf