[rfc-i] Following up from Atlanta
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Tue Dec 4 10:29:05 PST 2012
On 2012-12-04 18:08, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 2:10 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
>> On 2012-12-03 20:32, Nico Williams wrote:
>>> 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.
>> Lynx is your friend.
> I dislike Lynx and friends. If we can render text, is there any reason not to?
Can you elaborate why your preference should affect *everybody*,
although using HTML using lynx would work for you?
>>> - Fixed-width fonts are critical for some things: ascii art, and code,
>>> for example.
>> Yes. But just for that.
> That's a matter of taste and style. I much prefer fixed-width fonts
> for nearly everything. Why should we take your preference?
Because it's not only my preference.
>>> - 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.
>> What exactly do you mean by "render" here? And are you seriously saying
>> plain text is more accessible than HTML?
> Possibly. I'm sighted, so it's hard for me to tell, but I could
> believe it, yes.
In which case I would propose to defer to somebody who actually is
affected (see for instance Sam's message recently about plain text vs
things marked up with <h1> elements).
Best regards, Julian
More information about the rfc-interest