[rfc-i] Following up from Atlanta
nico at cryptonector.com
Wed Dec 5 13:02:29 PST 2012
On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)
<jhildebr at cisco.com> wrote:
> On 12/5/12 11:51 AM, "Nico Williams" <nico at cryptonector.com> wrote:
>>Agreed. If browsers had what I need then I might drop my request for
>>text. Eventually the browsers will all get there (and maybe Opera has
>>all that I need); maybe I should preemptively stop asking for text.
>>Something for me to think about.
> The prototype I did allowed you to overwrite the RFC editor's default CSS
> with your own fonts, colors, etc. The idea was that if you're using the
> default look and feel, you could treat the document as canonical.
I'll have to look at it. Link, again? How do I get regexp support?
(I also would love it if xml2rfc were to set id attributes that are
useful for navigating the DOM, and for browsers to have nice,
keyboard- and mouse-based DOM navigation. These missing features are
why I like a regular text format that I can trivially search for the
things I am looking for. Yes, I'm very lazy, which is why I wrote
>>I don't buy any arguments for not putting UTF-8 in .txt files, or not
>>introducing a variant of .txt that includes UTF-8. By now just about
>>everyone can display UTF-8.
> As long as they can tell that it's encoded as UTF-8, or can guess with
> heuristics. If you look at the archives, you'll see a discussion about
> this several months back.
Yeah, but I don't buy it. Sorry, if you're reading an RFC you should
expect UTF-8. Also, garbage on a tty happens -plenty- and it's not
the end of the world. If someone is still running a non-UTF-8 locale,
well, they can still find ways to view UTF-8 content; also: they
should switch as soon as practicable (I know, legacy, legacy, legacy).
More information about the rfc-interest