[rfc-i] draft-iab-rfcformatreq-01: fixed-width != ASCII
Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Wed Jan 23 08:38:06 PST 2013
On 23/01/2013 14:57, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On Jan 23, 2013, at 12:37 AM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> So, the fact that the RFC Editor currently publishes in a monospaced
>>> font has historic weight but is not actually a documented requirement.
>> Yes, but it's a de facto requirement (as Nico says, strongly implied
>> by the use of ASCII art).
> No, it is not.
Apparently I was unclear. It is a de facto requirement today for today's
canonical format**. It isn't a de jure requirement, in the sense that no
version of style guide actually states it.
> It is a requirement *for ASCII art only*. In a display format that supports multiple fonts, monospace is only needed there (and maybe for headings that are centered in renderers that are width-dependent).
>> I think it's a de facto requirement and I'm pretty sure we're proposing
>> to drop it.
> Some of us have proposed to drop it where it is not needed.
Sure. That's a very reasonable proposal if we want to continue to
use ASCII art, but as Wes says it would call for a metadata tag.
My point is that the draft is silent on this point and IMHO it shouldn't be.
**Try reading RFC 791 in Times New Roman. Ugly. Or display the
table of contents of any RFC in Palatino.
More information about the rfc-interest