design:html-requirements
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
|
design:html-requirements [2013/10/17 11:11] rsewikiadmin |
design:html-requirements [2014/09/17 07:28] rsewikiadmin |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
| The abstract must be marked up or tagged in a way that search engines will extract it as summary. | The abstract must be marked up or tagged in a way that search engines will extract it as summary. | ||
| + | ==== Open items - September 2014 ==== | ||
| + | Answer added where possible, per RFC Format Design Team call 16-September-2014 | ||
| + | |||
| + | **Scope of the html document** | ||
| + | |||
| + | > There are sections that are really requirements for people writing | ||
| + | > xml2rfc v3. Those should be teased out into the grammar draft or | ||
| + | > draft talking about submission restrictions on the v3 format. | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Joe will look at this; Paul notes that this assumes you have XML v3; Joe will need to work with Paul | ||
| + | |||
| + | > Section 3.2.13 has what looks like instructions to authors: "If the | ||
| + | > quote needs a citation" | ||
| + | > terms of the XML. What should be here is what the HTML is expected to | ||
| + | > reflect from the XML. What XML do we expect to be input to result in the | ||
| + | > HTML example in that section? | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Joe will go through v3 draft and try to highlight what might impact HTML | ||
| + | |||
| + | ====== | ||
| + | **CSS requirements** | ||
| + | |||
| + | > "The only tags that may contain a ' | ||
| + | > give an explicit list). | ||
| + | |||
| + | * punt on that, this won’t help developers, and we’re likely to change our minds | ||
| + | * we will need guidance to say this is an exceptional situation; make sure that where you KNOW a style attrib needs to be explicitly placed, make sure to say so, and we will tell the developer “unless you see instruction to use style directly, don’t” | ||
| + | * There are style attributes, and things that inform style. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ====== | ||
| + | **Basic HTML comments** | ||
| + | |||
| + | > It would be good to double-check that the currently deployed browsers | ||
| + | > treat that input as expected (at least at those we list as requirements). | ||
| + | |||
| + | * this draft should say the RFC Ed will maintain a list of browsers we will be testing against, and strip the actual list out of the draft; post on the RFC Ed website and maintain there | ||
| + | |||
| + | > Section 3.1 disallows points like U+0009. Section 4 talks about | ||
| + | > compressing instances of U+0009 (and other disallowed points) into a | ||
| + | > single U+0020. | ||
| + | |||
| + | * not applicable; this applied to submitters (which we won't have) not the tool | ||
| + | |||
| + | > Section 3.1 requires text containing elements be serialized as a single | ||
| + | > unwrapped line (to help with diffs). | ||
| + | |||
| + | * all that was about stuff submitted as HTML; we should talk about what to indent with (spaces, not tabs) | ||
| + | * also, let’s keep the ease of diffs as a motive, because some people will want to run diffs against the HTML. | ||
| + | * Since we are building a diff tool for the XML, diff-ing the HTML will be less of a normal workflow case. | ||
| + | * So, remove any reference to wrapped text, and let the tools team do whatever and we’ll see what feedback we get | ||
| + | |||
| + | > | ||
| + | > There is a separate requirement to indent children. (Thus there is an | ||
| + | > implicit requirement to start children on a new line.) | ||
| + | > | ||
| + | > Which of the following are we wanting to happen?: | ||
| + | > | ||
| + | > < | ||
| + | > | ||
| + | > or | ||
| + | > | ||
| + | > < | ||
| + | > < | ||
| + | > Your mileage may vary.</ | ||
| + | > | ||
| + | > Either way, the text needs to be made consistent and some examples would | ||
| + | > not hurt. | ||
| + | > Making the text consistent while dealing with nested lists may get gnarly. | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Will probably pull out the whole indenting stuff too. | ||
| + | * Will put in something fuzzy about pretty-printed, | ||
| + | |||
| + | > There are a couple of places where the document talks about non-div | ||
| + | > tags. I think this is from working in how we're going to place author | ||
| + | > provided and autogenerated ids. I don't think the distinction helps, and | ||
| + | > we can just say " | ||
| + | > also suspect we should be pulling out a section explicitly discussing | ||
| + | > these ids). | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Mention of non-div tags should be removed | ||
| + | |||
| + | ====Other open issues==== | ||
| + | > What prefixes to use for autogenerated tags? | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Heather to just pick something | ||
| + | |||
| + | > Should an RFC style document encourage authors to use common tags for | ||
| + | > things like " | ||
| + | > help solve for the problem of intuitive pointers to common sections in | ||
| + | > RFCs? | ||
| + | |||
| + | * How to write software that identifies security considerations? | ||
| + | * The only mandatory tag right now is for abstract. | ||
| + | * We can have two lists: one for mandatory, and one for suggested. | ||
| + | * Or maybe just make mandatory and see who complains. | ||
| + | * Paul to add something here in XML draft. | ||
| + | |||
| + | > What reference to use (if any) for HTML5? | ||
| + | |||
| + | * leave that up to the RFC Editor what we’re currently tracking, similar to browsers. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | > Where is the line between indicating what the XML should do within the HTML | ||
| + | > for things like ASCII art, packet diagrams, etc, and what is appropriately | ||
| + | > just information for the XML draft? | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Joe and Paul to review | ||
| + | |||
| + | > | ||
| + | > Using classes instead of ids to aid with styling. | ||
| + | > This is a very good point. If others agree, I would propose that the current | ||
| + | > draft be changed from "< | ||
| + | > that we specify classes for all sections that seem to have special meanings. | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Joe might have a counter proposal; the one Paul has is a starting place that might work as well | ||
| + | * will have more info to make a decision after the id section is done | ||
| + | |||
| + | > It's not clear what "same logic" in " | ||
| + | > the same logic as sections" | ||
| + | > attributes get placed, or something else? | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Joe to to review | ||
| + | |||
| + | > The document says " | ||
| + | > be exposed as anchors in the HTML as well." I suggested in my nits message | ||
| + | > striking " | ||
| + | > needs to be more specific and reflect _how_ the source XML allows anchors to | ||
| + | > be expressed, and how those will be translated into the HTML. This falls, I | ||
| + | > think, into being clearer about author-provided and autogenerated ids. | ||
| + | > | ||
| + | > There' | ||
| + | > <a class=' | ||
| + | > that are generated? | ||
| + | > | ||
| + | > The paragraph that begins "For other block items, such as < | ||
| + | > and < | ||
| + | > specifically in terms of input and output? | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Joe and Paul to review | ||
design/html-requirements.txt · Last modified: 2014/09/17 07:28 by rsewikiadmin
Page Tools
