[rfc-i] open issues: small and mobile screens
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.
More information about the rfc-interest