[rfc-i] Following up from Atlanta

Nico Williams nico at cryptonector.com
Mon Dec 3 11:32:59 PST 2012

I was in the room in Atlanta and wanted to re-state my comments
(somewhat modified since Atlanta) on the list for the record:

 - I would dearly like to retain an Internet-Draft and RFC display form
   that is amenable to display on text-based terminals.

   Unicode, color, line drawing characters -- these are all OK from this
   point of view.  Though I second comments that color not be used in
   ways that are essential to convey meaning, for accessibility reasons.

 - Fixed-width fonts are critical for some things: ascii art, and code,
   for example.

   The type of font to use should be up to the editor(s).  This means that
   a tool like xml2rfc needs to provide some measure of control over this
   (but we don't really want to specify specific fonts, just whether it should
   be fixed-width or not).

 - If there is such a thing as a "canonical" format I don't much care which
   format that is.  As long as the information in the document does not
   change substantially between formats there's really no need to
   declare one format or another "canonical".  I expect that documents
   which include media that cannot easily or at all be rendered as text
   will have to have an HTML or PDF or such format be canonical, but we
   should encourage authors to keep their documents faithfully
   renderable as text.

 - Note that text is probably the most accessible way to render
   I-Ds and RFCs.  This is a great reason to keep text renderings around.

 - I don't care what format is used for the source, though any format
   which lends itself well to diff/merge will be welcomed as such
   formats facilitate cooperation over distributed version control systems.



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list