mrex at sap.com
Mon Aug 6 16:32:09 PDT 2012
Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
> I very much hesitate to rely on color for anything official. Color gets
> complicated when talking about accessibility, and a different kind of
> complicated when talking about how this might apply to different streams
> as well as the different tracks within the IETF. Who gets what color,
> how to do we educate the readers as to what the colors mean, and so on.
I really appreciate and fully support this.
> It sounds like we are just moving the problem around.
To me it looks like a converting an existing simple solution into a problem
for the rfc editor, for all rfc authors plus all rfc consumers.
For those authors that desperately want to get a colorful variant of
their document published in addition to the official version, this option
has existed for quite a while already. Considering how rarely that option
is used by authors, interest appears to not to be overwhelming.
See RFC Editor's FAQ, Question 21
The eye-candy enhanced version of rfc5059
includes a colorful 115-page Powerpoint presentation:
The eye-candy enhanced version of rfc5598 uses some color, a proportional
fonts (with serifs), varying font sizes, occasional italics, and one (obvious)
occurrence of a non-ASCII character.
Is there a time limit up to when (after publication of the official RFC)
the RFC editor will accept an "enhanced" PDF version from the author?
More information about the rfc-interest