[rfc-i] document formats, was URIs in RFC references, was: feedback on draft-iab-styleguide-01

John R Levine johnl at taugh.com
Wed Mar 26 19:52:33 PDT 2014

> Why? The average user doesn't like to click twice, and likewise doesn't (want 
> to) think about different versions.

I think we should be careful about assuming that "the average user" wants 
whatever one of us wants.

I agree that HTML rendering is getting better, but I also don't think that 
browser rendered HTML is likely any time soon to equal ePub for offline 
reading on a tablet or PDF for printing.  Their goals are different.

>From what I've seen, a page with an HTML version of the document (or 
perhaps part of it for really long ones like RFC 5661) and links to other 
formats is likely to be the least bad.  If the client uses HTTP options to 
ask for a specific format, it should get that format.

John Levine, johnl at taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail.

PS: Just out of nosiness, what do you think people should get when they 
ask for RFC 6948?

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list