[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
Here are some follow-on
> 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
> or b) what looks like the HTML version of the
If the styling of the HTML can be improved, then I'd hopefully switch to
the HTML-like version.
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.
> Tony Hansen
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest