[rfc-i] hildeform

[Dave Crocker]

G'day.


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:

    http://www.bbiw.net/specifications/rfc5598-email-arch.html

(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 
format.)

Joe's html document header format as represented by:

       http://cursive.net/draft-hildebrand-html-rfc-2012-07-07.html

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 
research.

d/
-- 
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net

-- 
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net