[rfc-i] Pagination requirements

Joe Hildebrand jhildebr at cisco.com
Thu May 24 12:58:18 PDT 2012


On 5/24/12 12:35 PM, "Joe Touch" <touch at isi.edu> wrote:

> I don't mind if HTML is the *output* format. I mind if it's a required
> submission format.

What if you had to choose between RFC2629bis and a tiny subset of HTML?

> I'm not yet sure how I feel about it being the
> canonical (archival) format, since reuse of existing text is somewhat
> painful if the HTML and CSS isn't *very clean* (or, in the case of CSS,
> possibly nonexistent).

My proposal is going to say that the CSS is up to the RFC editor, and that
you SHOULD NOT have inline styles unless there is a really good reason,
perhaps with some sort of exception process that needs to be followed.

For folks that don't like the RFC editor's styles, I'll be proposing this:

<style type='text/css'>
<!-- RFC editor fills this in with a snapshot of their current CSS, so
     that the file is self-contained -->
</style>
<link rel='stylesheet' type='text/css' href='local.css' />

This will allow people that want to tweak to download the HTML, plunk it in
a directory with a local.css file of their choice, and have their
preferences override the RFC editor's look.

The proposal will also say that if you do this, the HTML no longer counts as
canonical.

-- 
Joe Hildebrand



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list