[rfc-i] Internet Draft Format

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Mon Mar 26 00:18:37 PDT 2012

On 2012-03-26 08:29, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
> Hello Tim, others,
> On 2012/03/25 3:01, Tim Bray wrote:
>> What’s wrong with the current HTML output? Looks OK to me on a
>> variety of screens and prints just fine.
> I think Fred has said similar things. But I tend to disagree, for both
> the XML input and the HTML output of xml2rfc.
> I see them as a pretty usable first approximation, and definitely a good
> job for Marshal Rose who created them without too much XML, HTML, or
> styling experience to start with. But there's tons of room for
> improvement. And it would really pay out if we used that room and made
> some of these improvements.
> I agree that a consensus-driven WG process isn't the right thing for
> this. But input from a wide range of people, and the help of somebody
> with a good feel for unobtrusive style should go a long way.
> This may be way too early in the process, but just to show what I mean,
> here are a few points that in my opinion are worth improving (many of
> them already mentioned):
> XML format:
> - The use of attributes for author names and titles -> use elements
> - The arcane table format (there are some XML editors that may come
> close to WYSIWYG, although not close enough for some of us, and these
> all know how to deal with table models similar to the HTML table model,
> but they fail for the current xml2rfc table model)
> - Inline (formatting) distinctions: When reading ASCII plaintext, you
> know you can't have these, but for HTML, being able to mark up (and
> style) inline examples, references to ABNF rules,... can be very helpful.
> HTML (actually CSS) styling:
> - The red color is not an IETF color, and is overused and in your face.
> It detracts from the content of the document too much.
> - The header can definitely be improved. No need for the gray
> background, no point in using just the two first thirds of the page
> width, no need for white lines after every line.
> - TOC doesn't need to be all bold.
> - Repeated TOC link doesn't need to be outdented to the right that much.
> - Autdenting of Section titles to the right also may need
> reconsideration. They are bold enough to stick out, and can quickly be
> reached via TOC.
> - Text in artwork is quite a bit smaller than text in paragraphs.
> - Not sure the horizontal lines between sections and subsections are
> helpful. Definitely a bad idea between a section title and the first
> subsection if there's no intervening text.
> - Reference section with way smaller font than main text. Contrary to
> some literary text, this is a frequently used section for standards.
> Regards, Martin.

How do you like rfc2629.xslt's HTML output in comparison?

Best regards, Julian

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list