Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)
jhildebr at cisco.com
Sun Jul 8 08:00:01 PDT 2012
On 7/8/12 6:50 AM, "Yoav Nir" <ynir at checkpoint.com> wrote:
>That's pretty nice.
>Could you post the source HTML? The one at the link is tooled with all
>the CSS needed to display it.
>Reading the draft, I think the HTML is still going to be more verbose
>than XML2RFC. OTOH HTML can handle images, formulas and tables now,
>whereas it would be an extension to XML2RFC.
The version above, which is what I actually edited before doing "idemponit
--final" to produce what gets published, is less verbose. All of the
stuff that looks boring and repetitive, like the table of contents, the
paragraph numbers, section numbers, references, etc, are all produced by
the tooling, so it's not nearly as bad as it seems to author.
>Regarding format for formulas, I think it will be a while before we can
>rely on MathML. Testing against
>http://www.mathjax.org/demos/mathml-samples/ , I see that Firefox and
>Safari can handle MathML, but IE and Chrome (the two most popular
>browsers these days) don't, so at least for now, it's a non-starter. SVG
>might work better.
Agree, but I couldn't figure out a good way to do alt text for SVG, and I
didn't want to suggest a format that was less accessible than what we have.
Note that the formula in the draft is produced by tooling; all you do is
set LaTeX source in the alt text (and the height, if you want it a
different size than the default), and the formula.js nit handles the rest.
More information about the rfc-interest