[rfc-i] Pagination requirements

Joe Hildebrand jhildebr at cisco.com
Thu May 24 15:09:45 PDT 2012


On 5/24/12 2:40 PM, "Joe Touch" <touch at isi.edu> wrote:

> 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.

I'm imagining that the RFC editor puts their .css file up via HTTP.  The
template that we give out has their CSS referenced by full URL.  When they
do the final publishing step, they replace that link in your html/head with
a style element that contains the contents of the link.

>> 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.
> 
> What does that mean then? What is the purpose of the HTML?

It's canonical when viewed with only the canonical style sheet.  You can
replace individual styles trivially for your viewing pleasure, but then you
can't call what you're viewing canonical.  It's mostly an irrelevant
distinction, but meant to deal with the objection that if I change out my
styles so that my document looks different, it might mean something other
than what was originally intended.  It's just lawyer weasel-language.

-- 
Joe Hildebrand



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list