[rfc-i] Branding

Dave Crocker 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
> important.

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.


  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list