dhc at dcrocker.net
Tue Jul 31 06:00:14 PDT 2012
In the scheme of major issues to debate, this one is minor for now, but
has long-term effect. So I thought I'd raise it from some particulars,
hoping to get folk to consider it over time:
Heather commented that people can recognize an RFC from a
distance. Our format has become a brand label.
As such, any addition or change that we make -- especially to the
first portion of an RFC -- ought to be made with some attention to the
human and marketing factors.
The html-ized version of RFCs currently produced at rfc-editor.org
essentially retains the .txt visual style of the document 'header'.
xml2rfc produces a very different document header format in html, such as:
(I used a modified version of Julian's xslt to produce this, but I
believe it didn't change the long-standing xml2rfc html document header
Joe's html document header format as represented by:
is quite different from either document header.
The human factors and likely branding utility of these different formats
strike me as having important differences that should be chosen
cautiously, including with the advice of experts of matters of this type.
When we get down to the fine-grained details of locking down
presentation choices, I suspect this ought to even include some market
More information about the rfc-interest