[rfc-i] hildeform

"Martin J. Dürst" duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
Wed Aug 1 02:39:24 PDT 2012

On 2012/08/01 5:14, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote:
> On 7/31/12 10:49 AM, "Dave Crocker"<dhc at dcrocker.net>  wrote:
>>> There's only one difference that is interesting, which is that current
>>> best practice on the web is to not use<table>'s as a placement
>>> mechanism,
>> sorry, no.  my assertion of 'quite' was about appearance, not technology.
>> The visuals of the xml2rfc document header are massively different from
>> yours and, I believe, the differences are likely to have differences in
>> some aspects of utility and possibly marketing friendliness.  (But I
>> said possibly.)
> I was unclear.  Other than the table-ness, everything else is easy to
> recreate with the exact HTML we have in my proposal, modifying solely the
> CSS.  Hence, the table-ness is the "interesting" part from an
> implementation perspective.  I don't know how important that is to you.

In the case of the HTML created by XML2RFC, the table used at the top is 
of course technically totally obsolete as a way to put information into 
two columns.

But not only that, but also design-wise, the table has lots of problems. 
There are clear dividing lines e.g. between authors and their 
organization, which go together semantically. On the other hand, the 
rows of the table visually pretend that there is some relationship e.g. 
between the Intended Status of a certain document and one of its authors 
(or their affiliation), which is nonsense.

> Regardless, I think we should take this as an opportunity to create a new
> brand, so recreating the brand of docs that we don't currently publish
> officially doesn't feel like a high priority to me.

Yes indeed. We also should make sure branding is aligned the IETF brand 
in general (we may need some special-casing for the Independent Stream, 
but not too much).

>>> but instead only to hold truly tabular data.  Granted, this is a
>>> religious
>>> thing within certain communities, but if we can find a way not to fight
>>> that battle, I'd appreciate it.

As explained above, the table doesn't make sense technically, and it 
doesn't make sense design-wise, so there are no fights to fight at all.

>> By casting it in terms of marketing and branding, I mean to move it
>> towards pragmatic issues that now have an established industry with
>> real, professional expertise, rather to treat it in the religions of
>> personal preference.

Getting the help of some professional is definitely something needed. 
The problem is that even with a very established industry, it's not easy 
to find the right person who understands the needs of the community and 
the audience and can create something that can last for lots of years 
down the line.

Regards,    Martin.

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list