[rfc-i] Request for feedback: the new CSS
martin.thomson at gmail.com
Wed Dec 14 14:51:58 PST 2016
One thing that turned up was an error in the toc (I have a PR that
attempts to correct many of the HTML errors that came up). That
manifested as a slight style difference. In looking into this, I
discover that draft-iab-rfc-html recommends the following
This is really just exploiting the fault tolerance of HTML.
says that <ul> contains <li>. I would prefer if we could mandate
that. That is,
I note that xml2rfc (the python thing) has produced the former
construction. Julian Reschke's XSLT-based transform produces the
latter form. I find that styling the latter is easier; dealing with
the former is a nuisance.
On 15 December 2016 at 09:02, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)
<rse at rfc-editor.org> wrote:
> On 12/14/16 1:54 PM, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
>> Hello all,
>> I've created a second sample HTML file for the developer, using the text
>> (with some modification to use the non-ASCII characters in the examples)
>> and structure from RFC 7700.
>> I've got a third sample in progress, using the text and structure from
>> RFC 7642. The figure will be converted to SVG for that sample. If my
>> brain doesn't melt from handcrafting all this HTML, the fourth sample
>> will be from RFC 7049.
>> I will post when we have an updated CSS. Feedback remains quite welcome,
>> either to this list or to the issue tracker on github
> I should note that in creating these HTML files, I have found and filed
> a bug re: the document info.
> If you create a sample file, you'll need to change that initial set of
> details in the file.
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest