[rfc-i] RFC Format - final requirements and next steps

Andrew Sullivan ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
Tue May 15 14:29:37 PDT 2012


On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 01:19:03PM -0700, Ole Jacobsen wrote:

> I must say that I find this discussion a little strange. A *major* 
> concern of anyone involved in print publishing is presentation and 
> readability. If you throw all that out the window and opt for user- 
> selectable fonts, formatting, re-flowed text, artwork that moves, and 
> so on for the sake of "small devices," then I think you've given up
> part of the original idea which was to make RFCs more readable and
> presentable in a world where our "competition" pays a lot of attention
> to those features.

My view, in case I haven't expressed it clearly enough, is that the
problems you are talking about are presentation issues for a given
final publication format.

I think that those issues are an important one for a final publication
format, which is why I think our current hard link between the final
publication format and the canonical format for the document source is
a mistake.  The current format, with all its presentation and
readability problems on paper, is even worse-suited for screens poorly
adapted to its fixed line length, lack of flow flexibility, and so
on.  That's a usability problem for me.

I believe that some base format from which one could print really
pretty versions for consumption by those who care about paper would be
good.  I have my preferences, but I don't care that much which we pick
as long as it's one canonical format that supports the adaptations to
display I find I need.  That is a separate problem from the canonical
format itself: we do need one, official, that's-the-authority form to
appeal to in case of bugs.

Best,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list