[rfc-i] draft-hildebrand-html-rfc

Peter Sylvester peter.sylvester at edelweb.fr
Mon Jul 30 00:11:49 PDT 2012

On 07/30/2012 07:38 AM, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
> On 2012/07/28 6:35, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote:
... some part deleted
>> http://cursive.net/draft-hildebrand-html-rfc-2012-07-16.html
>>> I'm convinced that using HTML for a submission format would be an
>>> extremely bad idea.
>> I'm sorry that my lack of visual design skills have made it difficult for you to understand the 
>> main point, which is that the look and feel is intended to be separate from the underlying 
>> semantic.  I welcome pull requests to:
>> https://github.com/IETF-Formatters/html-rfc/blob/master/data/rfc.css
> I'm not sure github-like collaboration is known to lead to good results for typographical design 
> (but I haven't heard of any counterexamples, either).
I may repeat myself: I do not think that typograhical design is the "most
important issue"  for the input format at the moment
unless we think that there is a special style that is just for a draft,
such that by replacing the style, a great deal (not all) of a the
draft-to-rfc conversion can be performed in a simple way by
changing the style, i.e. also by removing it, I don't suggest this though.

IMO,  an html rfc MUST NOT depend on css for readability.

> I'd personally suggest to try the following:
see above
some stuff deleted.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list