IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Wed, 14 December 2016 22:52 UTC

Return-Path: <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 562A51294AD for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Dec 2016 14:52:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.984
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.984 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.896, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (body has been altered)" header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zsG3rEvQa_As for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Dec 2016 14:52:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7DCB6129998 for <rfc-interest-archive-eekabaiReiB1@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Dec 2016 14:52:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36265B8090F; Wed, 14 Dec 2016 14:52:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Delivered-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03B72B8090F; Wed, 14 Dec 2016 14:52:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Authentication-Results: rfcpa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rfcpa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AW7q7gKlhOJ8; Wed, 14 Dec 2016 14:52:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk0-x235.google.com (mail-qk0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::235]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F76DB80097; Wed, 14 Dec 2016 14:52:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk0-x235.google.com with SMTP id x190so38262123qkb.0; Wed, 14 Dec 2016 14:52:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=6nZYo7LEC56mTZ5eHXEat/dqnxVPYpLvF16ctTsqMVM=; b=QLynmZnPXuW8DpkdYDC7G2GN5lvTAtWHC6udQIvXD/vQvwy/tOZfdIdIWJqd5AdsYg uzvPxeCE+qZeQM0+rg2otHB6Gb7gV7tvK7zM/5aSk6nl/XKem+RVwPNDdNYwu9Xi5ehF ys/fqxZRNga7PtMJgoMvDxRhxtGf6kuYjo+JBOLG/FojkKLS4La9L32+iZFlCBMqyGsu dMyR9elO1SxZZ/kKmbl57dGZ/B0roIL4jz9kwcyTm7VeTncEIQXyhZtux8tB0ejUaITQ d4YKirlNLuXOvpkx1l0vy1hSv/uJ5VDVc+EzjF/ErYMvlbIL1DLe5BGsV/Wjv684a8Qy Gq2A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=6nZYo7LEC56mTZ5eHXEat/dqnxVPYpLvF16ctTsqMVM=; b=RW5ctvaYQweEcj8JB6d6JAeM6wilVA5yIpANDMBYclXcw/RG0Mc+8q7lyrPVWj4gj5 yZGT6wfdtE5YeWBjkSkz+XFvdvCiHOvUHBfBw56bfNOpHRJgvHxajBuAohVKITM2GKNj /wbM53TdxwxAuQe84NZ5CbJrB7QCJ1HXdJhaj1jZ0cYY+sECwb5Xuvv4gf6LlTDBh818 A3rHhRgbL13M18VuU1OVZw5YGqr+bbhV0IDP7i6UaKbiFvoboI8otikbh0+AIzkJJ2+W YiHA7yefpd1VwuNBFzpX3Mkn5F0/nUimFox5Q0Kc/xe9khFK7RsWdM3lHTYJTKr/3Hwv /QxQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXK4k6eJTZc9b1maX3aozPzKViit3BzS0Oxv5yxYK6r9rjmlM/YzGsXg+1NXlLn8FRAmvOUPLIdfpUjNFw==
X-Received: by 10.55.158.193 with SMTP id h184mr4003798qke.202.1481755919392; Wed, 14 Dec 2016 14:51:59 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.140.38.233 with HTTP; Wed, 14 Dec 2016 14:51:58 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <c69f2a8e-8fd1-b6a6-52f9-dbf91f8c2251@rfc-editor.org>
References: <0efdc6b9-5bc5-c14c-7d25-5f0e8e96ba72@rfc-editor.org> <fae6222e-7a0b-5cc1-7206-e5012e05f65e@rfc-editor.org> <c69f2a8e-8fd1-b6a6-52f9-dbf91f8c2251@rfc-editor.org>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 09:51:58 +1100
Message-ID: <CABkgnnXsh00F9bi_V7Le=Xv87g++rtN=RCVDBCjvysAg_gU6Fw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)" <rse@rfc-editor.org>
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Request for feedback: the new CSS
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <rfc-interest.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
Cc: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

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
construction:

<ul>
  <li>1. Section</li>
  <ul>
    <li>1.1. Section</li>
  </ul>
</ul>

This is really just exploiting the fault tolerance of HTML.
https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/semantics.html#the-ul-element
says that <ul> contains <li>.  I would prefer if we could mandate
that.  That is,

<ul>
  <li>1. Section
    <ul>
      <li>1.1. Section</li>
    </ul>
  </li>
</ul>

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@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.
>>
>> https://rfc-format.github.io/draft-iab-rfc-css-bis/sample2.html
>>
>> 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
>> (https://github.com/rfc-format/draft-iab-rfc-css-bis/issues).
>>
>
> I should note that in creating these HTML files, I have found and filed
> a bug re: the document info.
>
> https://github.com/rfc-format/draft-iab-html-rfc-bis/issues/4
>
> If you create a sample file, you'll need to change that initial set of
> details in the file.
>
> -Heather
>
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email