[rfc-i] Request for feedback: the new CSS

Martin J. Dürst duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
Fri Dec 2 02:58:09 PST 2016


Hello Heather, others,

On 2016/12/02 04:21, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> A first draft of the CSS that will be embedded in the new HTML output
> format is ready for feedback.

Great start. See more comments below.

> The developer and I do not consider this
> done. In particular, things that need work include:
>
> * Mobile layouts will need further polish.
> * The index is not aligned with the other sections.
> * Compact lists have been given only a preliminary treatment. (And lists
> in general could use a bit more attention.)
> * Notes have not been given any treatment
> * Certain classes have not been accounted for (e.g. ".finalized").
>
> Given the restrictions around JavaScript, features like hamburger menus
> (those three or four lines that appear when the display is too small to
> show something like a table of contents or sidebar) are not available.
>
> Sample document:
> https://rfc-format.github.io/draft-iab-rfc-css-bis/sample.html
>
> If you have suggestions or recommendations, please add them as an issue
> in github.
>
> Issue tracker:
> https://github.com/rfc-format/draft-iab-rfc-css-bis/issues

Here are copies of my github issues for those who prefer the mailing list:

#10: Indentation from left edge needs more work

Currently, there are (too!!!) many different amounts of indentation from 
the left edge of the page. That "Index" is less indented than anything 
else seems to be a clear error. But the bigger problem is that block 
text is indented more than headings. This may be a direct influence from 
the text format, but it looks really out of place in the new format 
where headings stand out clearly because of their larger size and 
heavier weight. I have just at random checked a wide variety of books in 
my bookshelves, and none of them indents text blocks more than headings.


#11: Duplication of alternate address info in header unnecessary for 
Latin script

This may not be a CSS issue; if not, please reroute.
I have tried to explain this many times, and I was under the expression 
that I was successful, but apparently not:
"ɟ. H̭ildebrand (J. Hildebrand)" and "Čisco Śystems, Inc. (Cisco 
Systems, Inc.)" in the header look totally silly, not because they are 
constructed examples, but because they are useless overkill, different 
from any other serious publisher going back centuries.
Please fix.


#12: References use e.g. "BCP47, RFC5646", should be "BCP 47, RFC 5646"

This may not be a CSS issue; if not, please reroute.
In the reference section, there are missing spaces. Example:
[LANG-TAGS]
Phillips, A. and M. Davis, "Tags for Identifying Languages", BCP47, 
RFC5646, September 2009, http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5646.
It's clear that there should be no spaces in the URI (and the doi, which 
is missing in this case), but otherwise, there should be spaces after 
"BCP", "RFC", and so on, as there are spaces in the current RFC format 
in these places (see e.g. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6497.txt).



In addition, I think there's a translation error, in that the "author" 
field of [GOST3410], "Государственный стандарт Российской Федерации", 
would translate into something like "Official Standard of the Russian 
Federation", but the equivalent field reads "Federal Agency on Technical 
Regulating and Metrology", which according to Wikipedia would be 
"Федеральное агентство по техническому регулированию и метрологии".



> If you have time and interest, you can be of even more assistance by
> creating additional sample files according to the HTML spec so that the
> CSS developer has more content to test against.

I'd like to start converting a bis version of RFC 6068 to the new 
format, including some really internationalized examples. Any pointers 
to how to do that? (I'd want to generate the HTML from XML.)


> Thanks for your time and attention!
> Heather Flanagan, RSE

Thank you (and everybody else involved) for your hard work!

Regards,  Martin.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list