[rfc-i] Pagination requirements
touch at isi.edu
Thu May 24 13:40:39 PDT 2012
On 5/24/2012 12:58 PM, Joe Hildebrand wrote:
> 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 sure either is tenable as a submission format. For HTML, it
would depend on what subset.
>> 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.
Yeah, but the CSS needs to be something I can give to my WYSIWYG editor
usefully too. I'm not sure that's a solution either yet.
> 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 -->
> <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
What does that mean then? What is the purpose of the HTML?
More information about the rfc-interest