[rfc-i] rfc format cliff notes
rse at rfc-editor.org (Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)) Thu, 19 July 2012 16:10 UTC
From: "rse at rfc-editor.org"
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 09:10:09 -0700
Subject: [rfc-i] rfc format cliff notes
In-Reply-To: <50082F77.8090603@rfc-editor.org>
References: <50082F77.8090603@rfc-editor.org>
Message-ID: <50083161.4070701@rfc-editor.org>
Correction on wiki page url: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rse/wiki/doku.php?id=formatsummary On 7/19/12 9:01 AM, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote: > Hi all - > > Quite a number of people have gotten lost in the vast expanse of mud > pits, rabbit holes, bike sheds, and bubbling caldera, and so I've tried > to pull together a neutral list of the more contentious issues and their > major "for/against/did you consider?" points. > > If you'd like to read this on the wiki, it is available online at: > http://cursive.net/draft-hildebrand-html-rfc-2012-07-16.html > > To keep the rfc-i wholly contained, a copy of the information is below. > > ** If you have something to add, a point I missed or an argument that > you feel needs to be captured, please send it to me directly. I don't > want to rehash it on the mailing list at this time.** > > -------- > Current proposals: > * > [[ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/internet-drafts/draft-hoffman-rfcformat-canon-others-03.txt|draft-hoffman-rfcformat-canon-others-03.txt]] > * > [[http://cursive.net/draft-hildebrand-html-rfc-2012-07-16.html|draft-hildebrand-html-rfc-2012-07-16.txt]] > * > [[ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/internet-drafts/draft-rfc-image-files-03.txt|draft-rfc-image-files-03.txt]] > > This is a summation of the more polarizing issues related to RFC format. > Many participants in the discussion have dropped off in reaction to the > sheer quantity of discussion around these and the other topics. To > bring everyone back up to speed, this list the more contentious topics. > > ====== Physical format ====== > Pagination > * For: Ease of reference and clear printing; referring to section > numbers is too coarse a method > * Against: Want a smooth reading experience regardless of page or > screen size > * Additional thoughts: the RFC Editor does not recommend using page > numbers as points of reference > > > Character encoding - ASCII > * For: Most easily searched and displayed across a variety of > platforms. In extreme cases of having to retype/scan hard copies of > documents (it has been required in the past) ASCII is significantly > easier to work with for rescanning and retaining all of the original > information > * Against: Too limiting with regards to internationalization issues > > > Character encoding - UTF-8 > * For8: Allows authors to spell their names correctly; certain special > characters in equations or quoted from other texts allowed; citations of > web pages using more international characters possible > * Against: Exactly what characters are allowed and where the line > should be drawn remains unclear (why some characters commonly used in > European languages and not other, non-Latin characters? This is just > pushing the problem around.) > * Additional thoughts: just moving from ASCII to UTF-8 (as opposed to > UTF-8 and HTML or XML) leaves us with dependencies on the local file > systems and processors to be configured properly and do the right thing > with the document, where as browsers will recognize UTF-8 and can > declare the encoding definitively > > > Mobile Devices > * For: We should take their needs for format flexibility (reflow) in > to account > * Against: Not enough people use mobile devices, and those that can > can generally scroll, so this should be treated as an edge case at best > > > ASCII art > * For: Dependence on advanced diagrams (or any diagrams) causes > accessibility issues > * Against: It does not allow for reflow > * Additional thoughts: If we go beyond ASCII art, need to pick just > one format: GIF? PNG? SVG? > > > > > > ====== Production and publication issues ====== > > Use of RFC-specific tools > * Against: We can't be that unique in our needs that we can't use > commercial tools > * For: We have more control over the tools we write, and the audience > that reads RFCs will always be capable of coding up something new if > needed; we have xml2rfc to work from as a base and should perhaps > consider how to retain nroff > > > ASCII art > * For: It forces people to rely more on words and clear written > descriptions than the diagrams; each diagram is relatively simple and > discrete > * Against: The often poor, limited diagrams are a hindrance to visual > thinkers > * Additional thoughts: If we go beyond ASCII art and have the > normative diagrams be entirely separate documents, we may not need to > limit ourselves to one graphic format (but doing so may make things simpler) > > > Equations > * For: Some authors have chosen not to publish RFC due to difficulty > in displaying proper mathematical equations > * Against: So few RFC include mathematical equations that this should > not be given any priority in the discussion of format > > > Metadata and tagging > * For: Ability to semantically tag some document info, at least > authors' names and references is useful > * Against: Metadata is unnecessary overhead > * Additional thoughts: there is no list of tags that will be required > for XML or HTML that would build-in required simplification and support > for the archival nature of the series (that people can work longer with > a simplified set of tags), and until we have that, we cannot talk about tags > > > Containment > * For: Lack of containment for sections means that processing software > cannot be fully aware of the document structure, and that is serious > restriction > * Against: Containment is unnecessary and not compatible (or perhaps > just not required?) with traditional HTML and word processor document > * Against: Requiring containment may limit the number of editors > authors can use to create documents > * Against: Requiring containment would require every authoring format > to be translatable to the submission format > * Against: Containment should be optional > > > Source Code format > * For: having a source code format such as XML or HTML allows for > greater flexibility in creating a variety of display formats, with a > greater likelihood of similarity between them > * Against: having the canonical format be in code ties us in to > specific tools and/or tool support going forward > > _______________________________________________ > rfc-interest mailing list > rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org > https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest >
- [rfc-i] rfc format cliff notes Heather Flanagan RFC Series Editor
- [rfc-i] rfc format cliff notes Heather Flanagan RFC Series Editor