A Note on Publication Formats (July 2014)

The HTML and PDF publication formats will not look like the plain text format.
The HTML and PDF as produced by the RFC Editor might look like each other.
This page provides links and records the subjective feedback offered by the community, as collected by the RSE.

Remember, these are only prototypes; the goal is look at different possibilities in addition to the HTML versions available on tools.ietf.org, and decide what pieces from each work best for the Internet community.

With many thanks to Crowd Favorite and Julian Reschke for providing prototypes for community discussion.

File Description Feedback

Style 1 A sample draft that left-justifies the page, has a monospace font for the text (section headers have a different font), allows reflowable text within a certain maximum, and adjust fonts size automatically in proportion to the screen width. Major sections are divided by horizontal lines and references show in an open-table format.

The reference layout has mixed reviews.

The colored background for figures and examples has mixed reviews.

Preserving paper widths is not helpful and wastes screen real estate.

A flow scheme that makes the font sizes bigger as the browser size grows is useful.

Style 2 A sample draft that uses a proportional font for everything except figures and tables, includes the metadata below the title, and allows for reflowable text within a certain maximum. Font size stays the same through the changes in screen width. The reference section is an open table.

The reference layout has mixed reviews.

Preserving paper widths is not helpful and wastes screen real estate.

Style 3 A sample draft that has the document metadata (title, author, etc) as the side bar of the page when the screen is wide, and at the top when the screen is narrow. The font is fixed width for all text, and lines are reflowable within a certain maximum. The reference section is an open table.

The reference layout has mixed reviews.

The idea that the title of the RFC is so important that it should remain on the screen the entire time you are reading the document is pretty offensive.

Preserving paper widths is not helpful and wastes screen real estate.

Style 4 A sample RFC with a more traditional header structure at the top of the page, with additional metadata provided. The lines are reflowable with no obvious limit. Font is mixed between proportional font for the basic text and fixed-width for the figures and tables. The reference section is a list, not a table.

The change in font size between fixed-width and proportional text is distracting. For best readability, they should be the same size.

The colored background for figures and examples has mixed reviews.

File	Description	Feedback
Style 1	A sample draft that left-justifies the page, has a monospace font for the text (section headers have a different font), allows reflowable text within a certain maximum, and adjust fonts size automatically in proportion to the screen width. Major sections are divided by horizontal lines and references show in an open-table format.	The reference layout has mixed reviews. The colored background for figures and examples has mixed reviews. Preserving paper widths is not helpful and wastes screen real estate. A flow scheme that makes the font sizes bigger as the browser size grows is useful.
Style 2	A sample draft that uses a proportional font for everything except figures and tables, includes the metadata below the title, and allows for reflowable text within a certain maximum. Font size stays the same through the changes in screen width. The reference section is an open table.	The reference layout has mixed reviews. Preserving paper widths is not helpful and wastes screen real estate.
Style 3	A sample draft that has the document metadata (title, author, etc) as the side bar of the page when the screen is wide, and at the top when the screen is narrow. The font is fixed width for all text, and lines are reflowable within a certain maximum. The reference section is an open table.	The reference layout has mixed reviews. The idea that the title of the RFC is so important that it should remain on the screen the entire time you are reading the document is pretty offensive. Preserving paper widths is not helpful and wastes screen real estate.
Style 4	A sample RFC with a more traditional header structure at the top of the page, with additional metadata provided. The lines are reflowable with no obvious limit. Font is mixed between proportional font for the basic text and fixed-width for the figures and tables. The reference section is a list, not a table.	The change in font size between fixed-width and proportional text is distracting. For best readability, they should be the same size. The colored background for figures and examples has mixed reviews.