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

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Sun Mar 25 18:11:33 PDT 2012



On 3/24/2012 10:35 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
>
> 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.

IMO that's exactly why I value Word's Outline-mode, which is what I tend 
to write in. It helps me organize the document structure visually, but 
is not the print output.

Joe



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list