[rfc-i] draft-rfc-image-files-03

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Tue Apr 10 01:19:13 PDT 2012


On 2012-04-09 19:54, Paul E. Jones wrote:
> Julian,
>
>> Again: the output of rf2629.xslt has been designed to be a simple and
>> straightforward use of HTML. I'd like to hear feedback on the format, see
>> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc6266.html>  for an example.
>
> I largely like the format, though there are things I'd prefer to do
> differently:
> * I'd prefer that the header did not have white letters on a gray background
> with lines in between; I'd prefer just having a table without borders or
> padding (collapsed) with a width of 100% and with a bold font

Yes. That's an artifact of trying to be too different from xml2rfc's output.

> * I'd prefer to not use the red letters on titles (and on sections I've seen
> in other documents produced using xml2rfc); I like titles and sections to be
> without color

Understood. See above. Someone design an IETF color scheme :-)

> * I like the header format as published by the W3C
> (http://www.w3.org/TR/xml11/ for example), with the title at the top,
> editors listed below, links to related stuff, etc.  I also like the blue
> text, as it is easier on my eyes than the red (I'm not totally adverse to
> use of color)

Agreed. Right now the HTML tries to be close to what the TXT output 
would be, but once that doesn't matter anymore, we have more freedom.

> * I like how you have the<hr/>  after the abstract and copyright in this
> example, but do not like the horizontal rules between every section (as I
> often see)

These show up when the TXT version would have a hard page break; so 
these would go as well.

> * I like the gray / dotted border boxes with message parts inside.  That
> looks nice.
> * I really appreciate that every section has an id assigned so we can
> hyperlink to any section, not just the whole document.

Note that it has always a computed ID (so you can rely on it), but a 
named anchor is supported in addition.

> * I like everything else about this document format
>
> Not specific to this HTML example, but one thing we night want to consider
> is whether we want to change the normative words from all uppercase to
> italics (or bold) lowercase.  This document shows uppercase, because that is
> the current agreed style driven by the use of ASCII.  HTML opens up an
> opportunity to change that, if we want.

I'm currently using all uppercase with a different font because that 
way, copying and pasting to plain text will do the right thing.

Best regards, Julian



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list