[rfc-i] Graceful degradation is key, was: Re: draft-hildebrand-html-rfc

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Tue Jul 17 00:54:07 PDT 2012

On 2012-07-17 09:04, Martin Rex wrote:
> ...
>> I believe there is emerging consensus that that reference point should
>> be section numbers.
> I frankly do not see that consensus, I believe section numbers

Indeed, I should have said "rough".

> to be the sole reference points much to coarse, and I don't
> think that pathological fragmentation of text into subsections
> is a universal solution (let alone sensical).


> There may be multiple-pages examples, long lists, where being
> able to point to a page is sometimes useful.

If you do indeed have multi-page examples then adding more structure to 
the examples, or adding line numbers, will probably be more useful to 
the reader.

> I really want to see the pre-formatted for printing (rfcmarkup)
> RFC format be retained for future RFCs as well, and *I* will continue
> to exclusively use URLs into the the pre-formatted online RFCs
> during discussions, if at all.

On the other hand, I have stopped using them whenever I can (when 
there's a better real HTML version around).

>>> ...
>>> I don't mind that you use XML or HTML, and I also don't mind when the
>>> RFC Editor creates HTML versions of RFCs.
>>> But I want the RFC Editor to continue to accept nroff submissions
>>> for those that don't want to waste their authoring time on XML/HTML
>>> bike shedding.
>>> ...
>> Depending on what we agree on, allowing formats that are "too simple" is
>> likely going to cause additional work for the RFC Editor, which needs to
>> be paid. This is something we need to keep in mind. Optimally, the new
>> format will make the actual formatting *easier* for the production center.
> There can not be a "too simple" format, only a too complex format

The current submission format is "too simple" in that it requires 
heuristics to extract essential information like contact information, 
copyrights, and abstract (which sometimes fail), and requires additional 
work during RFC publication that could easily be avoided.

> that puts excessive and completely unnecessary burden on RFC authors.
> And I continue to be heavily opposed to all those lobbying with the sole
> objective to kill all other submission formats besides xml2rfc.

My main concern continues to be the *publication* format, because it 
affects the *readers*, not the *authors*.

We can of course decide to retain a primitive submission format, but it 
that causes the publication format to be primitive as well, I'll have to 
agree with those who claim that the IETF is stuck in the 1980s.

Best regards, Julian

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list