[rfc-i] Following up from Atlanta
nico at cryptonector.com
Mon Dec 3 11:32:59 PST 2012
I was in the room in Atlanta and wanted to re-state my comments
(somewhat modified since Atlanta) on the list for the record:
- I would dearly like to retain an Internet-Draft and RFC display form
that is amenable to display on text-based terminals.
Unicode, color, line drawing characters -- these are all OK from this
point of view. Though I second comments that color not be used in
ways that are essential to convey meaning, for accessibility reasons.
- Fixed-width fonts are critical for some things: ascii art, and code,
The type of font to use should be up to the editor(s). This means that
a tool like xml2rfc needs to provide some measure of control over this
(but we don't really want to specify specific fonts, just whether it should
be fixed-width or not).
- If there is such a thing as a "canonical" format I don't much care which
format that is. As long as the information in the document does not
change substantially between formats there's really no need to
declare one format or another "canonical". I expect that documents
which include media that cannot easily or at all be rendered as text
will have to have an HTML or PDF or such format be canonical, but we
should encourage authors to keep their documents faithfully
renderable as text.
- Note that text is probably the most accessible way to render
I-Ds and RFCs. This is a great reason to keep text renderings around.
- I don't care what format is used for the source, though any format
which lends itself well to diff/merge will be welcomed as such
formats facilitate cooperation over distributed version control systems.
More information about the rfc-interest