[rfc-i] document formats, was URIs in RFC references, was: feedback on draft-iab-styleguide-01
"Martin J. Dürst"
duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
Wed Mar 26 20:15:35 PDT 2014
On 2014/03/27 11:52, John R Levine wrote:
>> Why? The average user doesn't like to click twice, and likewise
>> doesn't (want to) think about different versions.
> I think we should be careful about assuming that "the average user"
> wants whatever one of us wants.
I agree about the danger of making assumptions. I sometimes use
different versions. I don't think it's unusual to use different
versions. But as a general heuristic, assuming that the average user is
lazier than us techies is actually not too bad.
> I agree that HTML rendering is getting better, but I also don't think
> that browser rendered HTML is likely any time soon to equal ePub for
> offline reading on a tablet or PDF for printing. Their goals are
It's not necessarily about "equal". But what I'm trying to say is that
if the result of our efforts were to produce a HTML version for which
everybody would agree that it was dreadful for printing out, then we'd
have done something wrong.
> From what I've seen, a page with an HTML version of the document (or
> perhaps part of it for really long ones like RFC 5661) and links to
> other formats is likely to be the least bad. If the client uses HTTP
> options to ask for a specific format, it should get that format.
Apart from the "perhaps parts of it", I agree. I also don't think we
need to qualify this as "least bad", it's just the best solution.
> PS: Just out of nosiness, what do you think people should get when they
> ask for RFC 6948?
HTML with SVG for the charts. If somebody sends me the data, I'll send
them back the SVG, although it may take a few days (I have to ask one of
More information about the rfc-interest