[rfc-i] draft-iab-rfcformatreq-01: fixed-width != ASCII
Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Fri Jan 25 00:18:59 PST 2013
On 25/01/2013 01:35, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
> On 1/23/13 8:38 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> 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.
> I have a few concerns: Given that individuals can set their preferences
> for font for many of the potential Publication formats discussed, I
> hesitate to declare that RFCs must be read in any particular named font.
> I also feel that any discussion on the pro's and con's of any given
> font is the kind of bike shedding that will not help this discussion in
> any way. So, I propose to have the existing requirement listed in the
> draft to cover the question of font at this time:
> * Fixed-width fonts and non-reflowable text are required for
> ASCII-art sections, source code examples, and other places
> where strict alignment is required.
I think that is accurate.
> I think that provides the necessary implementation guidance needed for a
> Canonical format. For Publication formats, we may end up having a
> slightly longer conversation.
More information about the rfc-interest