Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)
jhildebr at cisco.com
Tue Jul 31 10:02:40 PDT 2012
On 7/31/12 6:00 AM, "Dave Crocker" <dhc at dcrocker.net> wrote:
> Heather commented that people can recognize an RFC from a
>distance. Our format has become a brand label.
> As such, any addition or change that we make -- especially to the
>first portion of an RFC -- ought to be made with some attention to the
>human and marketing factors.
Agree. If we decide to pursue this path, I'd recommend that we ask the
IAOC to budget for an external expert to help us set the brand going
>Joe's html document header format as represented by:
>is quite different from either document header.
There's only one difference that is interesting, which is that current
best practice on the web is to not use <table>'s as a placement mechanism,
but instead only to hold truly tabular data. Granted, this is a religious
thing within certain communities, but if we can find a way not to fight
that battle, I'd appreciate it.
The color, etc. is easy to change. I figured I'd try something slightly
different to show that it was possible, but am absolutely willing to take
substantive suggestions for change.
>The human factors and likely branding utility of these different formats
>strike me as having important differences that should be chosen
>cautiously, including with the advice of experts of matters of this type.
Yes. I don't think we tend to attract folks with these specific skills to
our process, so we'll likely need to reach outside the community to get
>When we get down to the fine-grained details of locking down
>presentation choices, I suspect this ought to even include some market
Yes. Luckily (particularly if we go with the HTML approach), this is a
relatively well-understood problem, with many competing vendors offering
More information about the rfc-interest