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

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Wed May 16 02:15:09 PDT 2012


On 2012-05-16 10:43, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 16 May 2012, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>
>> I have no idea what specifically you are talking about when saying "lots of
>> these issues". Maybe a concrete example would be helpful.
>
> You missed the context which had to do with changing the way things
> are rendered through "local settings" in conflict (deliberate or
> otherwise) with whatever the designer had in mind. I consider this a

No, I'm aware of the context. I would still like to see a concrete 
example we can discuss.

> BIG problem in web design. It is nearly impossible to print anything
> properly from any browser, it is simply not a solved problem, which is
> why so many websites give you PDF files if you need to print. The

Have you tried printing rfc2629.xslt's output from Firefox?

> context was further that in print publishing, "design" is very much
> part of the readability and clarity. There was a suggestion that none
> of that mattered and we shouldn't spend any time on the topic. I
> disagree. Particularly since other SDOs very much do.

I agree that design matters; it's just up for discussion *how much* it 
matters. If design didn't matter I probably never would have started 
work on rfc2629.xslt.

>> We could start doing that; but that's a discussion we don't need to have right
>> now.
>
> Why? Are we or are we not discussing the future of what RFCs should
> look like?

We do. But if we want to micromanage all these kinds of things *right 
now*, we'll never finish.

I think that what we do right now in text/plain should be a starting 
point, to which we should *carefully* add things.

>> This problem has been solved reliably by the<pre>  element in HTML many many
>> years ago.
>
> No, it hasn't. RFCs aren't written in HTML, they're written in plain
> ASCII text, or at least the final form is (was). Count the number of
> times people on this list have complained about being able to simple
> print an RFC. Yes, this may be one way we solved that problem in the
> future (by using HTML or XML or whatever).

Then I don't understand your point. Keeping preformatted text 
preformatted is a solved problem. In HTML, in PDF, in XSL-FO. It may nt 
be solved properly in text/plain, but then the whole discussion is about 
moving away form text/plain, no?

> Again, I don't mind a lot of focus on engineering a solution, I would
> expect nothing else from this group, but I still have very little
> sense of the "bigger picture" in terms of what we want from our future
> RFCs in terms of format, including "presentation".
>
> Ole
>

Best regards, Julian
>
>>
>> Best regards, Julian
>>
>



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list