[rfc-i] Use of PDF/A for archiving RFC's

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Wed Mar 21 15:51:10 PDT 2012


On 2012-03-21 23:39, Joe Touch wrote:
>
>
> On 3/21/2012 3:32 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> On 2012-03-21 23:19, Joe Touch wrote:
>>> ...
>>> FWIW, I'm the one who uses Word to generate RFCs currently; I don't use
>>> XML because the editors are too cumbersome. Not to say I support that as
>>> any particular format, but I'd be very happy if the author format
>>> supported the use of a "modern WYSIWYG" editor. That's my personal
>>> preference, though, so I didn't list it as a requirement.
>>> ...
>>
>> Yes, and I'd like to use the opportunity to point out that WSYIWYG is
>> nowadays considers frequently as anti-pattern (unless you're doing
>> Desktop Publishing for things that get printed), because it makes little
>> sense when display devices vary widely in format. ("What You See Is All
>> You Get")
>
> Editing in a specific print format can be problematic, but WYSIWYG
> extends beyond "printout mode" to functions like being able to lift
> entire subtrees in outline mode and have them paste/drop anywhere with
> automatic renumbering.

Automatic renumbering even works with nroff (unless I'm confusing 
something), so I wouldn't call that a WSYIWYG feature.

> Displays do vary widely in format, but that doesn't necessarily mean we
> can't edit things "visually" (if you prefer that term to WYSIWYG),
> rather than peeking under the covers at the source code.

My *personal* experience is that WYSIWYG most of the distracts me and 
keeps me on focusing on the content. Yes, I'm not the average author, 
but then this is hopefully true for most people writing technical 
specifications.

Best regards, Julian



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list