dhc at dcrocker.net
Mon Aug 6 10:26:53 PDT 2012
On 8/3/2012 11:02 PM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote:
> On 8/3/12 2:30 AM, ""Martin J. Dürst"" <duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote:
> Once you can have a brand that goes beyond the capabilities of the
> lineprinter format, we might decide that the differences in brand are
Consonant with the note I posted a few minutes ago, I'd like to raise a
very large flag with the above:
It is stating that there will be different information in
different formats (presuming original formats remain in the repertoire.)
Branding, and the like, well might be far more visually appealing and
more functionally useful, in one form versus another, but we do not need
to restrict its occurrence to only one.
The fact that an RFC indicates its standards status in text in one form,
and might indicate via text and font change and color in another makes
the latter friendlier, more broadly accessible, and the like, but it
doesn't change what 'information' is present.
Current txt-form RFCs distinguish the stream, for example, in line 1,
upper left corner. And 'status' in line 4, left-hand-side.
These aren't the most visually friendly and alternate rendering forms
can be made more helpful for noting such distinctions. But, again, that
doesn't mean one contains the information and another does not.
More information about the rfc-interest