[rfc-i] open issues: small and mobile screens
jhildebr at cisco.com
Tue Jun 5 15:21:02 PDT 2012
On 6/5/12 1:13 PM, "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <iljitsch at muada.com> wrote:
> I don't think we'd want kilobytes of CSS code in RFCs, this would get in the
> way of human and maybe even machine readability. Perhaps if complex CSS is
> required for displaying RFCs well, the CSS included in RFC files could be a
> simplified version.
A) it doesn't get in the way of machine readability
B) humans should read the rendered version; there are other impediments to
viewing the source, such as long data: URIs and the table of contents
C) The CSS doesn't need to be very large if the structure is very simple.
D) In my current prototype, the CSS isn't embedded until the same time as
the data: URIs (at the final step before submission), so it doesn't get in
the way of editing.
E) I like the idea of having a simplified version in the doc, so A-D are
> Yes. I think it's possible to have multiple external stylesheets. That way,
> the first level of customization, which would also work on devices that don't
> allow the user to store a stylesheet locally, would be by loading a user
> selected stylesheet hosted remotely. Then if a local one is present, it
> overrules the remote stylesheet.
I do want to make sure there's at least a basic CSS embedded in the doc,
though. I pass these things around as files all the time.
> The remote stylesheet could point to a script that reads a URL from a cookie
> and redirects the browser to that URL in the cookie. This way, there is no
> need to modify the RFC HTML.
Whether it's a redirect or a direct answer is an implementation detail. We
don't need to specify that now.
More information about the rfc-interest