[rfc-i] Looking for design assistance with the HTML publication format

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Thu May 15 18:28:24 PDT 2014

On 16/05/2014 10:21, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
> On 5/15/14, 12:28 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>> Heather,
>> I'm not going to volunteer for this because I'm not qualified.
>> But I have a question:
>> I think there are currently *two* HTLM formats:
>> - the HTML output from xml2rfc

Note that there are some differences between the HTML
outputs from v1 and v2.

Also note that the style sheet and the HTML both influence
results. The page at http://www.ietf.org/about/process-docs.html
is produced using xml2rfc-v1 but rendered using the main IETF
style sheet.

>> - the "HTMLized" format derived from the .txt
>> Is the intent to only have one HTML format in the future?
>> Frankly I prefer the HTMLized format over the generated HTML format.
>> Maybe that is because it is effectively the txt format with links, so
>> that it is sufficient to know what the txt format looks like.
>> Conceivably I might eventually like something else better if I used it
>> all the time, but I think it will take some beauty contests to decide.
> Hi Paul,
> I am talking specifically about the HTML output that will be created by
> the RFC Editor.  The "HTMLized" format derived from the .txt is not
> something the RFC Editor produces, maintains, or supports.  Whether the
> IETF chooses to continue creating that document is not my call, but I
> would like to think the new formats coming out of the RFC Editor will
> become preferred by the majority of the community, such that
> tools.ietf.org no longer needs to house alternately rendered RFCs.

Therefore, the first part of the CSS design is probably to identify the
features of both of those formats and then to evaluate which of them
are good, bad or ugly, and also identify which features are missing.

I don't think CSS experts are needed for that part, in fact.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list