[rfc-i] hildeform

Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) jhildebr at cisco.com
Tue Jul 31 13:14:47 PDT 2012


On 7/31/12 10:49 AM, "Dave Crocker" <dhc at dcrocker.net> wrote:


>>There's only one difference that is interesting, which is that current
>> best practice on the web is to not use <table>'s as a placement
>>mechanism,
>
>sorry, no.  my assertion of 'quite' was about appearance, not technology.
>
>The visuals of the xml2rfc document header are massively different from
>yours and, I believe, the differences are likely to have differences in
>some aspects of utility and possibly marketing friendliness.  (But I
>said possibly.)

I was unclear.  Other than the table-ness, everything else is easy to
recreate with the exact HTML we have in my proposal, modifying solely the
CSS.  Hence, the table-ness is the "interesting" part from an
implementation perspective.  I don't know how important that is to you.

Regardless, I think we should take this as an opportunity to create a new
brand, so recreating the brand of docs that we don't currently publish
officially doesn't feel like a high priority to me.


>> but instead only to hold truly tabular data.  Granted, this is a
>>religious
>> thing within certain communities, but if we can find a way not to fight
>> that battle, I'd appreciate it.
>
>By casting it in terms of marketing and branding, I mean to move it
>towards pragmatic issues that now have an established industry with
>real, professional expertise, rather to treat it in the religions of
>personal preference.

Agree.

-- 
Joe Hildebrand




More information about the rfc-interest mailing list