[rfc-i] Following up from Atlanta
nico at cryptonector.com
Tue Dec 4 10:37:50 PST 2012
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
> On 2012-12-04 18:08, Nico Williams wrote:
>> I dislike Lynx and friends. If we can render text, is there any reason
>> not to?
> Can you elaborate why your preference should affect *everybody*, although
> using HTML using lynx would work for you?
I only want to be able to render RFCs as text (subject to loss of
audiovisual media). I'm not demanding that text be the canonical
format, or the only format.
>>>> - Fixed-width fonts are critical for some things: ascii art, and
>>>> for example.
>>> Yes. But just for that.
>> That's a matter of taste and style. I much prefer fixed-width fonts
>> for nearly everything. Why should we take your preference?
> Because it's not only my preference.
But it's also not true that 99% of the world agrees with you and not me on this.
>>>> - Note that text is probably the most accessible way to render
>>>> I-Ds and RFCs. This is a great reason to keep text renderings
>>> What exactly do you mean by "render" here? And are you seriously saying
>>> plain text is more accessible than HTML?
>> Possibly. I'm sighted, so it's hard for me to tell, but I could
>> believe it, yes.
Although I should add that one reason I prefer text is because I like
reverse video, and web browsers don't make reverse video easy (there
have been plugins for browsers that implement reverse video, but
invariably it screws up something on some/most web pages).
> In which case I would propose to defer to somebody who actually is affected
> (see for instance Sam's message recently about plain text vs things marked
> up with <h1> elements).
I haven't seen it. I just joined the list and skimmed the archives
briefly. I'll look for it.
More information about the rfc-interest