[rfc-i] issue: legal status of canonical formats
hallam at gmail.com
Sun Jun 3 05:32:12 PDT 2012
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 5:39 AM, Colin Perkins <csp at csperkins.org> wrote:
> On 3 Jun 2012, at 10:05, Yoav Nir wrote:
> > On Jun 3, 2012, at 11:48 AM, John Levine wrote:
> >>> such as "mobile" html, epub, or ODF, but I think even the regular HTML
> can and should work well on a phone or tablet, especially if it looks like
> the current HTML output of xml2rfc.
> >> I can report from experience that a Kindle deals a lot better with a
> >> MOBI mechanically created from the HTML than it does with the HTML.
> >> It's quite slow, rendering HTML is not its strong point.
> > Sure. The kindle is first an ebook reader and a browser second. I'm sure
> translating XML or some other canonical input format into MOBI would be
> easy enough if not trivial.
> > iOS and Android however, are supposed to give you "the Internet", so
> they work acceptably even with non-"mobile" HTML. It's possible that a
> "mobile" HTML can be generated that would fit even better, but even regular
> HTML should look better than the photos that Colin Perkins posted yesterday.
> Of course. My point in posting those photos was not to say that the
> current format looks great on a small screen, rather to show that if
> delivered appropriately, it can be readable and usable on a small screen.
I can't read text that small without glasses.
If I try to read text that small on a continuing basis I am going to end up
I really wish the Apple developers could get it into their skulls that
different displays have different dpi and that having to set the font size
in every application is tedious. Microsoft are not a lot better but they
are a little better.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the rfc-interest