Re: [rfc-i] Update on the CSS - second round

Martin Thomson <> Wed, 01 March 2017 01:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE0D0129505 for <>; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 17:01:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.86
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.86 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.229, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)"
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t5ycRfIz6E-g for <>; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 17:01:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E0EA1293DA for <>; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 17:01:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5179CB82083; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 17:01:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81A99B82083; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 17:01:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F0cQy3z-0uE8; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 17:01:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22c]) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 35B18B82082; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 17:01:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id s186so46864685qkb.1; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 17:01:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=DyNd/5tC6BbiMaQ+E//yQ3LlVDhBgk3GjhmZuR6eaTA=; b=KvfZW+YcCOk5DyaI1Vjs+g7Wi8JGbSa6mxgla6I/LhwmZ5boYY3D6JCoP6wG4WdmRm bQc2g7miVpBYaMOfor+uDXEfLLDGsx0IVEWnwrcDX7B81mwLYKATxJG40Umhq+zN4ULt yJnqwYVrH+0Ee2gONMUhfQh72dNHJyuXSTJzgkjtJsZPVzHlLQZHKr0Yn2iNH6XM1Adc PhhyfRvkLX7FhHeSEPigyTp7XDSNLFHBiffrtkL2J/remIh/6QkQ/amV3ECrpeWCuHpG KJySASJNQaXlqwQzLz5AXlOCCoiUj9Tk4AALJ9gMfcnSd4rNWPNIN4jXNPdtVjZ5TVGx yJlQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=DyNd/5tC6BbiMaQ+E//yQ3LlVDhBgk3GjhmZuR6eaTA=; b=mFn31EB5BP7YVbjtCDkzzTZmQ0m2KX3F1txVXezrd1EzaxxyEDBiNHMqA+yiMg6PC1 +YXdW6bcODoAgQvPiCnLmevJVCWYw2zHjuapWJRRLurZh3ecrMewKjIpgI5j0a526lll Wfa6bfzyLYJscbkeV+J/O8mX1QM5+3y0y0xQD3HsarsCwMcm6lT//9bbP5JfKwJcE1Lt ewv5qcf1o4m9BeCZhxIrAj7Luo7FPKugFZLQXpPcp3qHrKWzz8uqRzLt1W70Og+C9bhZ azqxsjrrVo4P3l2s4VhP6ax1kcCgJzlgoW+5mZCpOXluSgbqepYXsxfp7ocEkpW7KhXb q0FQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39lJYz3fdRwpnoZ86VLeYhrezIB2RE0UCQECQPWrmv6frluwXoICSdbs5NpHdMve+sn5T5vs+gf5fxK/ow==
X-Received: by with SMTP id s27mr7029533qta.278.1488330072840; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 17:01:12 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 17:01:12 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
From: Martin Thomson <>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 12:01:12 +1100
Message-ID: <>
To: "Andrew G. Malis" <>
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Update on the CSS - second round
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Cc: RFC Interest <>, "Heather Flanagan \(RFC Series Editor\)" <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Sender: "rfc-interest" <>

On 23 February 2017 at 00:19, Andrew G. Malis <> wrote:
> I completely disagree regarding the TOC on small screens. I like that
> wherever I am in the document, I can open the TOC, refer to it, scroll it up
> and down, and then if I close it without clicking on a link, I’m back in the
> exact same place in the document.

It's very easy to offer a link to the TOC that hovers over the page,
then - as long as your browser offers a functional back button - you
can return to what you were reading by hitting that button.

There's no perfect solution, but the consequence of the current
proposed design is that you don't see the TOC without tapping.  I'm
suggesting exactly the same number of taps for your use case, no
overscroll "bug", and no javascript.

p.s., That back button behaviour could be a product of javascript
overuse.  Hitting back should move between anchors on the same page.
It could be a Safari bug though, for which I'd recommend using a
different browser.  Of course, that might not help much, because it's
all really Safari anyway, but these things are usually outside of the
rendering engine.
rfc-interest mailing list