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

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Mon Jul 16 22:52:06 PDT 2012


On 2012-07-17 01:23, Martin Rex wrote:
> 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.

I believe there is emerging consensus that that reference point should 
be section numbers.

> ...
>> 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.
> ...

Which confirms my point.

> ...
> 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.
> ...

Depending on what we agree on, allowing formats that are "too simple" is 
likely going to cause additional work for the RFC Editor, which needs to 
be paid. This is something we need to keep in mind. Optimally, the new 
format will make the actual formatting *easier* for the production center.

Best regards, Julian


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list