[rfc-i] What the text version is used for (was Re: The <tt> train wreck)

Leonard Rosenthol lrosenth at adobe.com
Sun Aug 22 11:15:16 PDT 2021


PDF Commenting is fully defined in the PDF standard of ISO 32000.  It is supported by pretty much every major viewer out there – from those built into browsers and other UAs to stand-alone clients on desktop, mobile and web platforms.

Additionally, Web Annotation standard on which products like Hypothes.is are built, fully supports PDFs (as does Hypothes.is, IIRC).

Not sure what else you think is missing, Michael?

Leonard

From: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces at rfc-editor.org> on behalf of Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf at sandelman.ca>
Date: Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 11:49 AM
To: rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org <rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org>
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] What the text version is used for (was Re: The <tt> train wreck)

    jl> xml or html grep. Several people have said that when they're
    jl> commenting on a draft or I-D, they copy and paste rectangular regions
    jl> of text, which is generally impossible in HTML in a browser. (You can
    jl> copy, but try to select a rectangle.)

Not only is the way to comment, but it's also the best thing to paste into
your source code to articulate why you are doing something weird.
(Argue copyright vs debian in another thread)

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:
    > Huh? I don't know how to select a rectangle from a .txt file which
    > is not full width. Also, the cases where you actually *need* to
    > preserve the layout will be artwork or code. You can select those
    > from the rendered HTML with no problem.

Emacs can mark non-full-width parts to copy.
Academic papers are (still) doing two-column PDF, which is so annoying to read on
the screen in fit-width.  I wish I could reflow that.
It's also really hard to copy and paste from due to being unable to select a
single column.

    > (However, PDF has the advantage that it supports commenting.)

However, the ecosystem(s) to share the comments are lacking.
The HTML version can be matched with tools like https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fweb.hypothes.is%2F&data=04%7C01%7Clrosenth%40adobe.com%7C87484dcfeaa443ff4eda08d965844037%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637652441422430265%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=z679Nc2kLiP7l9JYoiFMsdG5%2F9iGXSRHCjehrC8eB44%3D&reserved=0
equally well.

I've done this while reviewing, but we are long way (socially) from being
able to benefit from this.  (Some of you will remember Mozilla Group
Annotations...).  It might be that they have the technology do to HTMLdiff.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF at sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20210822/c77f66b0/attachment.html>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list