| Both sides previous revision
Previous revision
Next revision
|
Previous revision
|
formatreq [2012/06/21 07:56]
rsewikiadmin |
formatreq [2013/05/31 09:25]
rsewikiadmin |
| | ====== RFC 6949 ====== |
| | Note that the requirements have been gathered and published as [[http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6949.txt|RFC 6949]]. |
| | |
| | ---- |
| | |
| The RFC Series has been in existence for over 40 years. During much of that time, the limitations of character set, line and page length, and graphics restrictions of RFC documents met the most immediate needs of the majority of authors and readers. As technology changed, new formats that allowed for a richer set of features when editing, reading, searching, and displaying documents came in to use and tools were created to convert the plain ASCII documents in to other desired formats such as HTML, PDF, and Microsoft Word. While the converted versions of the RFC are widely available, the canonical display format remains the plain text, ASCII, line-printer structured one. The canonical source format is nroff. | The RFC Series has been in existence for over 40 years. During much of that time, the limitations of character set, line and page length, and graphics restrictions of RFC documents met the most immediate needs of the majority of authors and readers. As technology changed, new formats that allowed for a richer set of features when editing, reading, searching, and displaying documents came in to use and tools were created to convert the plain ASCII documents in to other desired formats such as HTML, PDF, and Microsoft Word. While the converted versions of the RFC are widely available, the canonical display format remains the plain text, ASCII, line-printer structured one. The canonical source format is nroff. |
| |
| | Want broader character encoding for body of document | No | Yes, with limitations | UTF-8, probably; need to determine what further limitations, if any, will be required | | | Want broader character encoding for body of document | No | Yes, with limitations | UTF-8, probably; need to determine what further limitations, if any, will be required | |
| | Want the ability to denote protocol examples using the character sets those examples support | No | Yes | [RSE] similar to the general request for broader character encoding for the body of a document | | | Want the ability to denote protocol examples using the character sets those examples support | No | Yes | [RSE] similar to the general request for broader character encoding for the body of a document | |
| | Want the ability to semantically tag some document info, at least authors' names and references | No | **No** | | | | Want the ability to semantically tag some document info, at least authors' names and references | No | **No** | [RSE] implication here is that semantically tagging doc info would result in the canonical format of the RFC being source code, to be converted to a variety of display formats | |
| | Want to be able to include equations | Limited | **No** | Does not seem to be sufficient need for this to make it an explicit requirement | | | Want to be able to include equations | Limited | **No** | Does not seem to be sufficient need for this to make it an explicit requirement | |
| | Want a more flexible line length | No | Yes | [RSE] should be rephrased to state want to make the new format display reasonably well on a variety of screen sizes | | | Want a more flexible line length | No | Yes | [RSE] should be rephrased to state want to make the new format display reasonably well on a variety of screen sizes | |
