IETF Logo Mail Archive

[rfc-i] HTML version of xml documents

Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com> Thu, 01 December 2016 19:27 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 0D4FE129A46 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Dec 2016 11:27:55 -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 (message 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 WcNG9N_BjkNr for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Dec 2016 11:27:52 -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 467B2129CBE for <rfc-interest-archive-eekabaiReiB1@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Dec 2016 11:20:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECCD9B801E4; Thu, 1 Dec 2016 11:20:38 -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 C007CB80114 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 1 Dec 2016 10:50:54 -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 0ZnGRUePZD-l for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 1 Dec 2016 10:50:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg0-x22e.google.com (mail-pg0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::22e]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8BF69B80113 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 1 Dec 2016 10:50:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id x23so97833451pgx.1 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 01 Dec 2016 10:50:53 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:subject:reply-to:to:organization:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=YHmCTqaL2hWr9v8fCisNnpTIhwaWTID1p8Et30EIOMI=; b=WRtxqMw+JhO+PqkyxGN5+sCUZyUwp04dZcPvxW3ZUymW87V1UuJehAyNRjOk/bQWtH U1jexM0EG9bmwB8UpDnCJHRwenoMs+1g+hqPaXWWh1BIyNp6O07KC6SMYJjbE3otQOGV Z9uYlIF4IM6T0SsSmaGV+sCDzbriyOhTvEi5ojfTq/RAkbR7VTmpuX7Htg67Cc/33cgV mDkWKi7ytLQZUzBrwKxahA6ZYSD/kJHsfM+N/BN6+wdpicr1SM5TNX1wgIdVQB8nvg1X PpT5LEvkPu70Dox5TVjt6UftoKhV9OE0xoNk8sjGg3IoSerTPGC5RR6tdZp+DUW0USaE g0HA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:subject:reply-to:to:organization:message-id :date:user-agent:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=YHmCTqaL2hWr9v8fCisNnpTIhwaWTID1p8Et30EIOMI=; b=bDDpV+dMn14ZaDXkDClzmr6dgnYY1Fz8ueYmFjppxW4MK6ZMxQPf3lNFQSzfbSScP7 hSCDpI48OKlFblSPG8H58KaAKr08Sk53blG1VbOi9XcjkzIK7My9tFAre0DxV9y59NTl DtC5hIEe5KnlpWkxAjVX1gTmswe2aaBKfDUH+E31OOOhf6kw38KX//rkmpDJB4ecP5/W RusnMq9ivRqCwhakbia2++fgrdvdp6Xq4NTaS7q5tS2tAQjglz3GVuVhrc1JBYLq5pI/ TSppOO28mdbQE4T5jL8A6AOIA/ltsGSVdCw0H3K85m3pFb+QWgOWjoekih+JJ9b2q+w1 qn8A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC02854qfK5jrwYeLvFWTShFMxHc2sQWh8i1+DJdEyRgdlRCrlhzb/n1/VJqYbyZyzA==
X-Received: by 10.84.177.129 with SMTP id x1mr82840121plb.105.1480618252890; Thu, 01 Dec 2016 10:50:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2602:304:cda0:8800:8d0b:864c:37d6:42c9? ([2602:304:cda0:8800:8d0b:864c:37d6:42c9]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w24sm1984060pfa.9.2016.12.01.10.50.52 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 01 Dec 2016 10:50:52 -0800 (PST)
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com>
X-Google-Original-From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
To: RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <522c7563-ae0e-67b7-315a-604de1d961fd@dcrocker.net>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 10:50:43 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 01 Dec 2016 11:20:37 -0800
Subject: [rfc-i] HTML version of xml documents
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>
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: "rfc-interest" <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

G'day,

I'm reacting to output for Internet Drafts, but feel that format issues 
for RFCs and I-Ds should be the same, and this is the only solid venue 
for discussing such things, so...


The html version of an xml2rfc document is little more that a txt 
version with active links.  (Maybe nothing more; maybe a little more; I 
haven't done an actual audit.)

Also a disclaimer:  I haven't tracked recent discussions about 
html-izing RFCs.  I'm just reacting to what output is now being 
generated for drafts.  I thought I heard a long time ago that some 
professional graphic design was going to be applied to this, but it 
clearly hasn't reached the html generator for I-Ds...


It's important that the ability to have fonts and graphics not lead to 
excessive formatting cleverness, but I think we also lose readability 
benefits by ignoring these features.


To that end, I suggest at least these kinds of changes:


0. Pagination

    Don't.


1. Headings

    The only current action is to make the heading bold.

    I suggest also varying font size, according to heading level.

    I also choosing a non-black, dark color, for additional emphasis. 
I'm a fan of dark blue.  Julan seems to currently favor green.

    Vary the vertical spacing above the heading, again according the 
heading level.

    Hmmm.  Html does a number of things when using it's own heading 
constructs, whereas the current generator invents span-based mechanisms. 
  So perhaps most of what I'm suggest devolves to:  use html heading and 
tweak fontcolor and size.)


2. Tables

    Use html tables, rather than emulating the text ascii style


d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email