[rfc-i] RFC format: any discussions at the Paris IETF?

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Sun Feb 26 20:23:26 PST 2012


On Feb 26, 2012, at 7:35 PM, Tim Bray wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Joe Touch <touch at isi.edu> wrote:
> 
>> FWIW, my point is that a form that doesn't have a WYSIWYG editor is, IMO,
>> DOA.
> 
> I wasn't aware of any authoring technology in which What You See
> (while writing) will approximate What You Get (while reading) on a
> 3.5" handset, a 7" tablet, a 10" tablet, an Amazon Kindle, a 11"
> MacBook Air, the 30" monitor often found on often office desktops, US
> letter-size paper, and European A4.

With the exception of Kindle (which I don't have, so cannot verify), all of the above work for me on a daily basis for PDF and DOC/DOCX. 

For paper printout, "shrink to fit" addresses the actual pagesize differences. The rest allow zoom and pan.

There are certainly other issues; those formats are great for consistent viewing, but may not be archival. I'm assuming that we have several desirable points doc evolution to consider - again, this is a fairly old issue:

- generation
- archiving
- displaying
- searching

My point is that discussions on document formats should never focus on just one of these stages, but are a tradeoff among all four (at least - there may be others). A format that's easy to display may not be easy to render.

However, I consider XML a non-starter, since it's been around for quite a long while and there is still no "modern" editor.

I consider "modern" an editor that doesn't force authors to write in source code. That's no more appropriate now for the IETF than are direct use of typed HTTP commands.

Joe


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list