[rfc-i] LaTeX proposal misunderstood

Yaakov Stein yaakov_s at rad.com
Wed Mar 28 22:25:35 PDT 2012


Ole

It isn't "editors" per se, it is the use of a typesetting "system"
vs the use of WYSIWYG.

I can't speak for others, but the reason I am speaking of this
rather than "what RFCs look like"
is simply that we have to get used to the fact that they should look different on every device.

A format that looks good on "letter" or A4 paper,
isn't optimal for laptop screens, but we have been able to get by.
But it breaks down on small devices (as I demonstrated in my presentation).

So we need the document to be smart enough to adapt to the screen size and characteristics.
We can get that by using a typesetting "system" with internal marking of what 
the various parts of the RFC are (paragraphs of text, tables, lists, 
block diagrams, protocol timelines, equations, etc).
A display driver that understands these differentiations
will be able to display the document optimally on each device.

Y(J)S

-----Original Message-----
From: Ole Jacobsen [mailto:ole at cisco.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 23:57
To: Joe Touch
Cc: Yaakov Stein; rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] LaTeX proposal misunderstood


I have no idea why we ar discussing editors AT ALL.

I thought we were supposed to discuss evolving the RFC *format* which 
I took to mean what RFCs look like (yes, when printed, because that
is what they were "intended" to be at least by design). In this 
regard, our format is about 35 years behind any (most?) other SDOs.

Any chance we could discuss that instead of "my favorite editor 
is..."?

Ole


Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972   Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: ole at cisco.com  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj
Skype: organdemo




More information about the rfc-interest mailing list