[rfc-i] Importance of good 'canonical' typography (was: Re: draft-hildebrand-html-rfc)

Phillip Hallam-Baker hallam at gmail.com
Tue Jul 31 10:06:48 PDT 2012

I definitely do not want to be the person setting the house style. In
fact I would like to see that go to a professional who spends their
time doing typography. If I was asked to do it, I would go crib from
someone else who knows how to do it right.

Getting the house style right is important though. The Times (i.e. of
London) had classified ads on the front page for years until they
finally sorted it out and went to proper typography. They would not be
in business today if they hadn't done that.

On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)
<jhildebr at cisco.com> wrote:
> On 7/30/12 8:44 PM, ""Martin J. Dürst"" <duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote:
>>Let me make a contrary point here: I think the 'canonical' style of RFCs
>>(and IDs) is very important. This should be a style that works well for
>>at least 99% of our users, and is tolerable hopefully for 100%. It will
>>be the style that most people will use to look at the documents, and it
>>will be the style that people identify with the IETF for years to come,
>>the same way people have identified the old ASCII-only typewriter style
>>with the IETF for years. This warrants that we treat it quite seriously.
> +1.  Please don't take my lack of desire to be the one setting that brand
> to be an insensitivity to the importance of that brand.  Quite the
> opposite.
>>I'd personally go with something with a somewhat more modern feel that
>>Palatino, but I don't have any clue what that could be, sorry.
> Requirements-wise, I wanted something that worked across a variety of
> platforms, didn't want to embed a font, and absolutely don't want to
> require enough JavaScript and remote access to do an external font in a
> cross-browser enough way.
>>I'd use more.
> OK.  Will add some more.
>>> Maybe.  Without resorting to tables, I don't really like the way the
>>> [RFC2119] tags work in hanging-indent form, but let's see what you
>>Agreed. But that's not getting better by adding bullets in front of
>>these tags, or is it?
> Agree.  Removed the bullets, and indented the 2nd+ lines, but still
> looking for good ideas.
> --
> Joe Hildebrand
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

Website: http://hallambaker.com/

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list