[rfc-i] Importance of good 'canonical' typography (was: Re: draft-hildebrand-html-rfc)
Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)
jhildebr at cisco.com
Tue Jul 31 07:31:57 PDT 2012
On 7/30/12 8:44 PM, ""Martin J. Dürst"" <duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote:
>Let me make a contrary point here: I think the 'canonical' style of RFCs
>(and IDs) is very important. This should be a style that works well for
>at least 99% of our users, and is tolerable hopefully for 100%. It will
>be the style that most people will use to look at the documents, and it
>will be the style that people identify with the IETF for years to come,
>the same way people have identified the old ASCII-only typewriter style
>with the IETF for years. This warrants that we treat it quite seriously.
+1. Please don't take my lack of desire to be the one setting that brand
to be an insensitivity to the importance of that brand. Quite the
>I'd personally go with something with a somewhat more modern feel that
>Palatino, but I don't have any clue what that could be, sorry.
Requirements-wise, I wanted something that worked across a variety of
platforms, didn't want to embed a font, and absolutely don't want to
cross-browser enough way.
>I'd use more.
OK. Will add some more.
>> Maybe. Without resorting to tables, I don't really like the way the
>> [RFC2119] tags work in hanging-indent form, but let's see what you
>Agreed. But that's not getting better by adding bullets in front of
>these tags, or is it?
Agree. Removed the bullets, and indented the 2nd+ lines, but still
looking for good ideas.
More information about the rfc-interest