[rfc-i] draft-rfc-image-files-03

Paul E. Jones paulej at packetizer.com
Mon Apr 9 10:54:50 PDT 2012


> Again: the output of rf2629.xslt has been designed to be a simple and
> straightforward use of HTML. I'd like to hear feedback on the format, see
> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc6266.html> for an example.

I largely like the format, though there are things I'd prefer to do
* I'd prefer that the header did not have white letters on a gray background
with lines in between; I'd prefer just having a table without borders or
padding (collapsed) with a width of 100% and with a bold font
* I'd prefer to not use the red letters on titles (and on sections I've seen
in other documents produced using xml2rfc); I like titles and sections to be
without color
* I like the header format as published by the W3C
(http://www.w3.org/TR/xml11/ for example), with the title at the top,
editors listed below, links to related stuff, etc.  I also like the blue
text, as it is easier on my eyes than the red (I'm not totally adverse to
use of color)
* I like how you have the <hr/> after the abstract and copyright in this
example, but do not like the horizontal rules between every section (as I
often see)
* I like the gray / dotted border boxes with message parts inside.  That
looks nice.
* I really appreciate that every section has an id assigned so we can
hyperlink to any section, not just the whole document.
* I like everything else about this document format

Not specific to this HTML example, but one thing we night want to consider
is whether we want to change the normative words from all uppercase to
italics (or bold) lowercase.  This document shows uppercase, because that is
the current agreed style driven by the use of ASCII.  HTML opens up an
opportunity to change that, if we want.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list