[rfc-i] RFC Format - final requirements and next steps

Tim Bray tbray at textuality.com
Wed May 16 06:40:08 PDT 2012

As of today, the HTML form of xml2rfc output prints beautifully from any
modern browser; immensely better than the legacy line printer format and, I
would argue, well enough to meet our current requirements.
On May 16, 2012 1:43 AM, "Ole Jacobsen" <ole at cisco.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 16 May 2012, Julian Reschke wrote:
> >
> > I have no idea what specifically you are talking about when saying "lots
> of
> > these issues". Maybe a concrete example would be helpful.
> You missed the context which had to do with changing the way things
> are rendered through "local settings" in conflict (deliberate or
> otherwise) with whatever the designer had in mind. I consider this a
> BIG problem in web design. It is nearly impossible to print anything
> properly from any browser, it is simply not a solved problem, which is
> why so many websites give you PDF files if you need to print. The
> context was further that in print publishing, "design" is very much
> part of the readability and clarity. There was a suggestion that none
> of that mattered and we shouldn't spend any time on the topic. I
> disagree. Particularly since other SDOs very much do.
> >
> > We could start doing that; but that's a discussion we don't need to have
> right
> > now.
> Why? Are we or are we not discussing the future of what RFCs should
> look like?
> > This problem has been solved reliably by the <pre> element in HTML many
> many
> > years ago.
> No, it hasn't. RFCs aren't written in HTML, they're written in plain
> ASCII text, or at least the final form is (was). Count the number of
> times people on this list have complained about being able to simple
> print an RFC. Yes, this may be one way we solved that problem in the
> future (by using HTML or XML or whatever).
> Again, I don't mind a lot of focus on engineering a solution, I would
> expect nothing else from this group, but I still have very little
> sense of the "bigger picture" in terms of what we want from our future
> RFCs in terms of format, including "presentation".
> Ole
> >
> > Best regards, Julian
> >
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20120516/1347dafa/attachment.htm>

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list