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

Dave Crocker dhc at dcrocker.net
Sat Mar 24 22:35:37 PDT 2012

On 3/21/2012 11:32 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")

This strikes me as an interesting point that is probably missed for most 
/visual/ editors.  I'm a fan of that editing environment -- rather than, say, vi 
-- for a variety of reasons including those Joe cited.  The author has a more 
immediate sense of the text and possibly easier editing functions (such as Move 
Tree) of the text.

But an overly pretty visualization can implicitly deceive the author into 
thinking they are looking at /the/ final form.  As noted, there are lots of 
final forms, given the wide variety of display device types these days.

For some reason, I'm remembering back to Engelbart's NLS system which had nice 
visual editing but couldn't be mistaken for the print form.


   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list