[rfc-i] Following up from Atlanta
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Tue Dec 4 10:48:49 PST 2012
On 2012-12-04 19:37, Nico Williams wrote:
> 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.
lynx *does* render HTML as plain text.
>>>>> - 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.
I did not claim 99%. I do claim vast majority.
>>>>> - 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).
We can add a requirement that the HTML version that is published can
easily be switched to reverse video (either by alternate CSS, by script,
or by browser plugin).
>> 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.
Not here. Over there:
Best regards, Julian
More information about the rfc-interest