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/>).
- 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.
Ietf mailing list