[rfc-i] Graceful degradation is key, was: Re: draft-hildebrand-html-rfc

[Martin Rex]

Julian Reschke wrote:
> >
> > If page numbering didn't work 1:1 between printouts and on-screen,
> > then it would be pretty useless (as substitute).
> 
> Why?

As a consistent reference point within existing multi-page RFCs,
that will reliably work independent of how other look at the document,
or how I will look at the document tomorrow.

> 
> OK, I get it; you don't like browsers. Case closed. Observation: you are 
> part of a very very very small minority.

I just do not believe that a web browser is the equivalent of "42",
i.e. the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and
everything.

It actually is using a sledgehammer to open a nut.


> 
> I'm pretty sure this can be solved with the right command line 
> parameters, or a different browser instance, or a different browser. Of 
> course that requires that you *want* to make it happen, which doesn't 
> seem to be the case.

I don't seen value in training how to use a sledgehammer
to crack a nut.  There are more appropriate tools that work fine.


> 
> > No really, Browsers are made for serialized consumption of content in
> > a single window.  Many system start browser in full-screen-mode by default,
> > may users use browsers in full-screen mode by default, and many web pages
> > don't fit all important information on 1024x768 displays even when using
> > a full-screen browser window.
> 
> We're not discussing those web pages. We're discussing RFCs that happen 
> to use HTML as format. They will format nicely in windows on almost any 
> width; contrary to plain text.

I don't mind that you use XML or HTML, and I also don't mind when the
RFC Editor creates HTML versions of RFCs.

But I want the RFC Editor to continue to accept nroff submissions
for those that don't want to waste their authoring time on XML/HTML
bike shedding.


-Martin