[rfc-i] Character sets, was Comments on draft-iab-rfcformat
"Martin J. Dürst"
duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
Thu Dec 20 03:07:39 PST 2012
On 2012/12/20 9:54, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
> On 12/19/12 4:13 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
>> For many years there has been the possibility to publish an RFC in
>> an additional format with colorful text, fancy type faces and
>> sizes, graphics and all. Considering how rarely it is used, there
>> evidently is no signficant demand, and neither is there necessity.
> I am also curious as to why more individuals have not chosen this
> option, but I don't think there is enough information to assign a
> conclusion. My own perception is that it could be people just don't
> realize that option, OR they feel it's more of a hoop than they want
> to jump through given all the other things they've done to get the I-D
> to an RFC publication, OR there is not a need.
Definitely the first two, plus the impression that even if I as an
author know about the PDF version, the average reader will just go to
the ASCII version because they don't know about the PDF version.
> In terms of additional options, I suspect people do want more than
> just the very very plain text given how popular the datatracker html
> version of the RFCs are, as judged by how often I see the datatracker
> version referenced in various bibliographies rather than the
> rfc-editor.org version.
In my experience, it's not so much the datatracker version but rather
the tools version (e.g. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3987).
More information about the rfc-interest