Subject: [Tools-discuss] RFCs lack section anchors; links are useless.

From: Michael Witten <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2017 15:10:39 -0000

Consider the following:

  https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2525

In the table of contents, the section numbers are presented as
links; for instance, the "2.1" in the following is a link that
can be clicked (as is the page number, "3"):

  2.1  No initial slow start........................................3
  ---                                                               -

Clicking on the "2.1" link directs the browser here:

  https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2525#section-2.1

Alas! There is no such anchor corresponding to the URI fragment;
the browser has no idea what to do, and so does nothing.

Fortunately, though, the page-number link does work.

Sincerely,
Michael Witten

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 15:42:53 +0200

>    https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2525

You understand that the HTML versions published here are the results of 
the script "rfcmarkup" (*) processing the published plain text files?

> ...

Navigating to

   https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2525#section-2

shows that the version number is there, but the section doesn't have a 
title at all. Likely rfcmarkup doesn't deal with this strange edge case.

Best regards, Julian

(*) https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/

---

From: Michael Witten <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 14:56:40 -0000

> (*) https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/

I couldn't possibly care less.

It doesn't work; somebody who knows the toolchain should fix it, and
thereby take pride in making a tool that is actually functional.

> title at all. Likely rfcmarkup doesn't deal with this strange edge case.

A the very least, the script should be able to stick a section anchor
on the page that is known (as per the ToC) to be associated with that
section.

Sincerely,
Michael Witten

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 17:19:21 +0200

> thereby take pride in making a tool that is actually functional.

Thank you for your kind acknowledgement of my pro-bono efforts to provide
this service and make the code work with different RFC formats from almost
5 decades.

> on the page that is known (as per the ToC) to be associated with that

Please send code.

	Henrik

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 17:23:44 +0200

> this service and make the code work with different RFC formats from almost

+1 - Michael, please be aware that this is best-effort open-source code 
that nobody was paid for.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Michael Witten <[email-masked]>,
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 16:02:32 -0000

By the way, Google stuffed your email into the Spam folder, and explained
that this was done because your email doesn't meet its standard for a
sending party:

  https://support.google.com/mail/answer/81126?hl=en#authentication

I hope that's helpful information.

On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 17:19:21 +0200, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
> this service and make the code work with different RFC formats from
> almost 5 decades.

I did acknowledge your efforts; I did so by contributing my own efforts:

  A report about a problem.

I didn't have to make a report; I could have just not cared. How about
acknowledging *my* contribution?

I'm trying to help you make a better tool, but you want me to rub your
feet, too, or something.

>> [At] the very least, the script should be able to stick a section anchor

According to your own horn tooting, *you* are the guy who knows what's
going on here; *you* are the guy who *already* knows what kind of fix
is needed.

It makes absolutely *no* sense for you to throw the burden back in my
face; I'm a person who knows only that something isn't working.

If you don't have the time, or you are ill, or you've moved on in life
to tackle other projects, then SAY SO; ask me kindly to look into the code,
or pass it off to someone who *can* provide code. I mean... if you're no
longer maintaining this script, surely you've taken steps to pass on the
torch to someone who is ready and willing... right? RIGHT?

Sincerely,
Michael Witten

---

From: Michael Witten <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 16:09:42 -0000

>that nobody was paid for.

I've been involved in *many* best-effort open-source projects.
You're doing it wrong.

Your reply set the tone, my friend; maybe there's a language barrier.

Sincerely,
Michael Witten

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 19:17:23 +0200

Hi Michael,

Inline:

> Your reply set the tone, my friend; maybe there's a language barrier.

Good point.  Your subject line was:

  "RFCs lack section anchors; links are useless."

Thank you for your contribution.

	Henrik

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 19:33:27 +0200

I've just discarded a nastier trolling reply from <[email-masked]> to
the list, and blocked him from subscribing.  Please don't send any replies
to his earlier messages.

Regards,

	Henrik

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 22:04:05 +0300

Good!  I wan’t planning to reply, as the saying goes: "don’t feed the trolls”.

Bob

> On Sep 11, 2017, at 8:33 PM, Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> --
> Tools-discuss mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss
> 
> Please report datatracker.ietf.org bugs at http://tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb
> or send email to [email-masked]
> 
> Please report tools.ietf.org bugs at http://tools.ietf.org/tools/issues or
> send email to [email-masked]

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 08:22:22 +1200

Henrik, be assured yet again that most of us are extremely appreciative
of your efforts; thank you again.

FYI, ironically the table of contents in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1855
shows another case where the heuristic fails. But the relevant links work:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1855#section-2.1.1
Especially:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1855#page-3
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1855#page-8

Regards
   Brian

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 11:23:44 +0200

Hi Brian,

> of your efforts; thank you again.

I know, and thank you for making it explicit :-)

> shows another case where the heuristic fails.

Right.  But I just had an idea of a possible heuristic that might catch
this case.

> But the relevant links work:
> 

:-)

Best regards,

	Henrik