[rfc-i] feedback on draft-hoffman-rfcformat-canon-others-00, was: RFC Format - final requirements and next steps

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Thu May 17 11:28:07 PDT 2012

Here's some of my feedback on this:

Sec 2 is incomplete as follows:

- It specifies the format of paragraphs, but the semantic content of 
text is significantly affected by structure, such as heading level, 
numbering, lists, and sometimes indentation (whether you agree or not, 
this is still the standard for bulk inclusion of quoted text).

- it specifies UTF8, but is it limited to printable UTF8? what does TAB 
mean? (what are default tab settings, or is it always "add 8 spaces"?), etc.

- text art is not appropriate unless there's a way of indicating 
fixed-width font for that portion of the document; regardless of whether 
90 chars can be printed, the art is nonsensical unless in fixed-width 
font (which then begs the question of font indication)

Sec 3 - there's no reason to refer to HTML here. The text is just as 
valid if another format were chosen (e.g., PDF).

I agree that HTML is useful to consider at least as one of the 
noncanonical formats, but this doc would be more useful if it didn't 
assume that HTML was in the running as the canonical format.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list