[rfc-i] "wysiwyg" requirement

Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) rse at rfc-editor.org
Wed Jan 16 10:25:52 PST 2013

On 1/15/13 7:17 AM, Tim Bray wrote:
> Don't feed the troll.
> On Jan 15, 2013 12:51 AM, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke at gmx.de
> <mailto:julian.reschke at gmx.de>> wrote:
>     On 2013-01-15 06:52, Martin Rex wrote:
>         Tim Bray wrote:
>             Except for, nroff is an outdated tool that has no notion of
>             structural
>             integrity (or actually of structure at all), fosters the
>             illusion that
>             66-line 80-column monospaced paginated text is anything but
>             an accidental
>             artifact of long-obsolete display technology, and and whose
>             use is rapidly
>             heading into the territory of ?actively harmful?.
>             My problem is that I can?t help thinking of the IETF as (in
>             part) a
>             publisher of high-value intellectual content, and that
>             content deserves
>             better respect than is shown by the use of tools that were
>             second-rate 30
>             years ago.
>         Those who try to deveive themselves and others that displaying
>         proportional text would be a trivial, long-solved problem, probably
>         do not have the slightest clue what they're actually talking about.
>         See this information about how much this is still an area of
>         research, trial-and-error, frustration, and user&developer dismay
>         because things regularly will not work as expected, and in
>         particular
>         not in the first few releases of a software:
>            http://www.virtualdub.org/__blog/pivot/entry.php?id=379
>         <http://www.virtualdub.org/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=379>
>         -Martin
>     As far as I can tell, we do not *plan* to *write* software that
>     displays proportional fonts. We plan to *use* *existing* software.
>     Best regards, Julian

I agree that a WYSIWYG tool can be useful to authors.  And, since it
would be used for authors writing I-D rather than the RFCs themselves,
it falls under the purview of the community to create the tool rather
than the RFC Editor to require it.  I do hope someone in the community
picks this up and writes one.

-Heather Flanagan, RSE

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list