[Rswg] Re: Q: RFC policies / tooling for wide tables

[Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>]

I don't know.  Those tables look pretty bad to me.  They overflow pretty badly for me.

Have you considered using definition lists instead?

On Mon, Jul 8, 2024, at 11:21, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> [ Hope this is the right list, else pls. help me to find a better one 
> (rfc-interest ?) ]
>
> I have a draft with tables that are impossible (for me) to format
> into 72 characters in txt output. HTML output on the other hand
> is IMHO fine.
>
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-anima-brski-discovery-03.html
> (Tables 1,2,3)
>
> So i was wondering:
>
> Q1: Is it acceptable for RFCs to only have correct rendering of such
> tables in HTML, for example if the text format had some appropriate
> marking ("see HTML format for this table"). I remember that i have
> seen such notes for images, but not  tables.
>
> Q2: HTML does a better job fitting those tables not only because
> if effectively doesn't care about 72 characters, but also because
> it does do better auto-folding of cell content. I have written
> the doc in kramdown. I have not found any auto-folding for cells..
> maybe i am missing out on some option to improve the txt (even though
> i fear it wouldn't be enough anyhow). Especially Table 2. Or else,
> if manual folding is required, does RFC Editor have better tools
> after they've changed the draft to their full-RFC formatting ?
>
> Thanks a lot!
>     Toerless
>
> -- 
> rswg mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]