[rfc-i] open issues: small and mobile screens

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Thu May 31 11:30:22 PDT 2012


On 5/31/12 12:19 PM, Joe Touch wrote:

> I think that the onus for support for *highly*-constrained devices rests
> on the consumer, not the producer.
> 
> I consider "highly constrained" to be a device on which reading current
> RFCs would be prohibitive (e.g., cellphone). I agree it would be useful
> to support useful consumer output on a wider range of devices, but we
> should establish a reasonable lower bound - I'm not sure what that is,
> but a 4" phone is at least 1/4 what I would consider useful for reading
> anything beyond a few paragraphs.

IETF 83 was the first meeting at which I owned a smartphone. Several
times I found myself without an "unconstrained" device but wanting to
check a technical point in an RFC or Internet-Draft. With the current
format it was extremely difficult to even find the right paragraphs, let
alone read them. It doesn't need to be this way.

Peter






More information about the rfc-interest mailing list