[rfc-i] how do you use PDF versions of RFCs and Internet Drafts?

"Martin J. Dürst" duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
Thu Mar 6 01:58:13 PST 2014


On 2014/03/06 01:27, Tony Hansen wrote:
> On 2/25/14, 2:15 PM, Tony Hansen wrote:
>> I'm gathering information on how PDF versions of RFCs and Internet
>> Drafts are used by the community.
>>
>> 1) How do you use PDF versions of RFCs and Internet Drafts?
>> 2) What are your preferred sources for these PDFs?
>> 3) What PDF features do you use? What PDF features do you not use?
>>
>> Feel free to respond either privately or on the rfc-interest list.
>
> Thanks for those who have replied so far.

I haven't replied so far, but I'm taking this chance to do this. I'm not 
usually using PDF to read RFC, my preferred format for draft and RFC 
intake is tools.ietf.org/html.

As part of an experiment, and with the help of Larry Masinter, I 
submitted several versions of IRI-related drafts as PDF to be able to 
include non-ASCII characters, please see 
http://tools.ietf.org/pdf/draft-ietf-iri-3987bis-13.pdf for an example. 
With the work towards allowing non-ASCII characters in examples and 
author names,... in the future, the need for/advantage of PDF in this 
area disappears.


Here are some follow-on
> questions:
>
> 4) For those of you who use PDFs within various reading programs, how
> important are features such as the following to you?
>      *) Text Structure
>      *) Document Structure
>      *) Metadata
>      *) Tagged PDF, bookmarks
>      *) Extractable Sections, such as
>          -) making the "code" extractable, where code might be things
> like ABNF, C code, etc.
>          -) embedding the XML source itself within the PDF
>      *) live links

My general idea would be that if we have this information, and PDF 
supports it, then it would be a pity not to include it, unless it's way 
too much work. I think there are people from Adobe involved in the IETF, 
they may be able to help.


> 5) What would you like improved, if anything, in the PDF versions that
> you do use?

Sorry, can't really answer that.

> 6) Would you prefer a PDF rendering of a) what looks like the text
> version of the document,

For the moment, I'm personally preferring a rendering close to the text 
version (equivalent to the HTML version at tools.ietf.org/html, for 
example).

> or b) what looks like the HTML version of the
> document?

If the styling of the HTML can be improved, then I'd hopefully switch to 
the HTML-like version.

Regards,   Martin.

P.S.: Everybody, please remember that not only the XML/DTD of the 
original xml2rfc, but also the HTML styling was done by a (quite capable 
and lucky, but far from professional) amateur.

> Thanks
>
>      Tony Hansen
>
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list