[rfc-i] Pagination requirements

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Thu May 24 13:40:39 PDT 2012

On 5/24/2012 12:58 PM, Joe Hildebrand wrote:
> On 5/24/12 12:35 PM, "Joe Touch"<touch at isi.edu>  wrote:
>> I don't mind if HTML is the *output* format. I mind if it's a required
>> submission format.
> What if you had to choose between RFC2629bis and a tiny subset of HTML?

I'm not sure either is tenable as a submission format. For HTML, it 
would depend on what subset.

>> I'm not yet sure how I feel about it being the
>> canonical (archival) format, since reuse of existing text is somewhat
>> painful if the HTML and CSS isn't *very clean* (or, in the case of CSS,
>> possibly nonexistent).
> My proposal is going to say that the CSS is up to the RFC editor, and that
> you SHOULD NOT have inline styles unless there is a really good reason,
> perhaps with some sort of exception process that needs to be followed.

Yeah, but the CSS needs to be something I can give to my WYSIWYG editor 
usefully too. I'm not sure that's a solution either yet.

> For folks that don't like the RFC editor's styles, I'll be proposing this:
> <style type='text/css'>
> <!-- RFC editor fills this in with a snapshot of their current CSS, so
>       that the file is self-contained -->
> </style>
> <link rel='stylesheet' type='text/css' href='local.css' />
> This will allow people that want to tweak to download the HTML, plunk it in
> a directory with a local.css file of their choice, and have their
> preferences override the RFC editor's look.
> The proposal will also say that if you do this, the HTML no longer counts as
> canonical.

What does that mean then? What is the purpose of the HTML?


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list