[rfc-i] feedback on draft-hoffman-rfcformat-canon-others-00, was: RFC Format - final requirements and next steps
paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Thu May 17 11:42:55 PDT 2012
On May 17, 2012, at 11:28 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
> Here's some of my feedback on this:
> Sec 2 is incomplete as follows:
> - It specifies the format of paragraphs, but the semantic content of text is significantly affected by structure, such as heading level, numbering, lists, and sometimes indentation (whether you agree or not, this is still the standard for bulk inclusion of quoted text).
I'm missing something. I don't see how the proposed format (unwrapped text) affects any of "heading level, numbering, lists, and sometimes indentation". Can you give an example? I get the feeling I should be adding something, but I don't see what.
> - it specifies UTF8, but is it limited to printable UTF8? what does TAB mean? (what are default tab settings, or is it always "add 8 spaces"?), etc.
It is not limited to printable UTF8: otherwise, we would have no line endings. :-) The question of TAB and its many other "interesting" control character friends is left to the RFC Editor.
> - text art is not appropriate unless there's a way of indicating fixed-width font for that portion of the document; regardless of whether 90 chars can be printed, the art is nonsensical unless in fixed-width font (which then begs the question of font indication)
Fully disagree. For the canonical version or any non-marked-up version, fixed-width is required for alignment of art (which includes ABNF). We don't need to say what font is used for display, just that it be fixed-width. For marked-up versions (such as HTML), they need to be able to encapsulate lines with text art but, again, they don't have to specify the font, just indicate that it should be fixed-width.
> Sec 3 - there's no reason to refer to HTML here. The text is just as valid if another format were chosen (e.g., PDF).
There is a very good reason: many people in this discussion have shown a strong desire for HTML. Ignoring that is ignoring a seeming consensus.
> I agree that HTML is useful to consider at least as one of the noncanonical formats, but this doc would be more useful if it didn't assume that HTML was in the running as the canonical format.
Fully disagree. We should be honest about the community's stated desires.
More information about the rfc-interest