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

Martin Thomson <> Wed, 22 February 2017 02:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 982A01294F7 for <>; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 18:06:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.089
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.089 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=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (body has been altered)"
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K6nl_8zC8HEl for <>; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 18:06:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1BE2A1294F4 for <>; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 18:06:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5910B80199; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 18:06:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80964B80199; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 18:06:04 -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 Q09--ztC8T4k; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 18:06:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::22d]) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5FFE4B80198; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 18:06:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id x35so53633899qtc.2; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 18:06:00 -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; bh=MVMAlzMgFEoKtuf0p2tX++YKz7fBYWuvumXoT8FhRh4=; b=bgUyk/nnIMZY5HM7rK/sX6oJVTe9y1XqWlqfxxSLG3Bk4pP0XhiPKnfvpYwwwn25dK BKSGcSvAnrK9LJRjuMmehdUSE7n3g7plT5ppdfSZIjL97kffHUiFlsCLnlj9yCrX4LO4 31q90aQDP84ZIfb0u1GnlJh7Wa5fMc78J4Z9wbMicB+dYCo+H1xtC7SKNjMUCwKd2+xv iBqDkXHgJcqPwImOU+3CPfdYabjsAX60d6DeQlYMayoDy8SK6+jfbZ2rcIbqVZ+3PlYA TC2kKmExMyFlUtKqsyrarulDu3+JXEXXkT+753zvH5QlDaVMEyl2UdD9jk7A1S6YJbtV 6Z0A==
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; bh=MVMAlzMgFEoKtuf0p2tX++YKz7fBYWuvumXoT8FhRh4=; b=SP36PA3lXydTtrvaAaiaB4QNYVpHPLo+i0LVQePBitCBIJNGzLCjq8lbxUqwWhJ3xo ZYTNxozMHn6upLUcT0y/SXCQKZqD0FSw+vfa2O9euKLEkrF7cv9FARaJWenfJ5fCKKJX Ym2rZwZexk2QiX88558wSUNULO3BKP3PzzdPawricS1b3rzJqzQ8eVveER+4udinP0ED BqCIl/tCp9Fj+OyicBk0wjXbwmK54oN7Q3yNM0X2gRyaj8sQEoRpBiJrd9ET5DhbSb+w 55sipc0oBBrE4VWlVoYh8UqOH7X5sQXpXdn/cqnXfXUnFv1ozfj5ns++wjchlv3DTVMh Y+sg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39k8y/Kz0QdhDeOAt9B69pUjFZ2O2vV3emGI2q4h/yZcJ92+GHmEesS0dT2PUEtPbjszPN3U5VtUUicg9g==
X-Received: by with SMTP id s27mr6476490qta.278.1487729159338; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 18:05:59 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 18:05:58 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
From: Martin Thomson <>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 13:05:58 +1100
Message-ID: <>
To: "Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)" <>
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: <>, <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: "rfc-interest" <>

On 21 February 2017 at 17:52, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)
<> wrote:

Hi Heather,

I checked these out on phone (with a decently large screen), desktop,
and print preview.  These are all massive improvements and you seem to
have found good resolutions to the issues I raised, thanks.

I don't think that the change to use Javascript for the table of
contents on narrow views is an improvement.  It effectively removes
the TOC from the document.  As a regular reader of these things, I
need to see the table of contents.  Having to click or tap ruins that,
especially since the button is on the very edge of what I can easily
hit with my fat digits.

On narrower screens, leaving the TOC inline (where it would otherwise
appear in the text version) is better.  The little hamburger icon
could then be a link to the TOC.  That wouldn't require Javascript
either, though that's not my overriding concern.

The other issues that I saw were all problems with the source.  For
instance, the double-comma Brian observed was in the HTML source and
easily corrected.  The precis document also uses something that
appears to be a badly formatted definition list in the IANA
considerations, but that turns out to be straightforward text with
irregular spacing.
rfc-interest mailing list