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

Ole Jacobsen ole at cisco.com
Tue May 15 15:34:09 PDT 2012


On Wed, 16 May 2012, Julian Reschke wrote:

> That is true. Is that a problem? If people choose to use an ugly type face:
> their problem.

It may or may not be a problem. In the web world it most certainly IS 
a problem because pages are OFTEN designed (intelligently or not) for
a specific font/size, heck even browser. When this design 'intent' 
clashes with whatever I (stupidly, by default, or otherwise) chose to
set as "my environment" then we get real functional problems, like
the "login" button is hidden behind the word "foo" or whatever.


> > Justification for example, italics for example, indentation for
> > example.
> 
> OK. I don't think we have discussed this in detail so far.

Indeed we have not, but we ARE talking about documents and some people
on this list seem to think that format, design etc are not important.

 
> Then you may be talking to designers who haven't understood how to design for
> different output devices.

With an almost infinite combination of enviroments, user settings and 
so on, this is EXTREMELY difficult to do well.

> 
> Right now we only have artwork *between* paragraphs. Unless we change that, it
> won't "move".

Yes, "right now" we have 1960s lineprinter format.

> 
> Probably because most of us would be completely happy with something simple
> which just isn't as bad as what we have today.

Maybe. I'd suggest that we don't get to make this change very often 
and should consider our options and tradeoffs carefully.

Ole

> Best regards, Julian
> 


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list