IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Tools-discuss] non-specific version of htmlish internet-drafts

Tom Pusateri <pusateri@bangj.com> Sun, 06 September 2020 19:28 UTC

Return-Path: <pusateri@bangj.com>
X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 885913A1130 for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Sep 2020 12:28:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=bangj.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 MwnioEo3XN1O for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Sep 2020 12:28:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oj.bangj.com (69-77-154-174.static.skybest.com [69.77.154.174]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A5623A1133 for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Sun, 6 Sep 2020 12:28:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain (69-77-155-155.static.skybest.com [69.77.155.155]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by oj.bangj.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 498F01B253; Sun, 6 Sep 2020 15:28:49 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=bangj.com; s=201907; t=1599420529; bh=1o1efGZYTOIXYh3GpsQ6Y6S3ckVDJAfx5wO6dSR1kdc=; h=From:Subject:Date:References:Cc:In-Reply-To:To:From; b=j65R1EORJ3RtBqInhRHt9LtgMRgLUcLOaZ5S3Q95U55xo7X5Po13B34Cj8VNh+tn7 0E7/80OLAjSbqkPSVjGQ96I6cEyeR5aq+R5puM3RhyYKqGMuno4cJaxoapGDEyXEoe t+UTrct4kxjJj48O9azFWQnIgUTCfNsFo2qig4aXQfdOUBHR9Ch6kCBYkbpR7l7CgS yAjpvBhiSWoR7Tj41Bhp2Pj2LSIeluOWtm8aNRyAS245dVI3bWqOKfKj8As0I9AJd+ Z2GnqR4P6K5x7v+zFKd2KZaN6Pjgw9kt1FKevdbBB3wIe9igTJr14jk9O3F6UTsrnG BlIfzkmQvOuDw==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Tom Pusateri <pusateri@bangj.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Sun, 06 Sep 2020 15:28:48 -0400
Message-Id: <5569EE88-B3A9-42F3-963A-D2A0CA7EC8AB@bangj.com>
References: <5F049D8A-E720-44BF-9831-1FECA4C5CCF8@gmail.com>
Cc: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, tools-discuss@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <5F049D8A-E720-44BF-9831-1FECA4C5CCF8@gmail.com>
To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (18A5357e)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/JOTOCE8Ie3ABJGbVXJLklwMvkKc>
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] non-specific version of htmlish internet-drafts
X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion <tools-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tools-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:tools-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 06 Sep 2020 19:28:57 -0000

> On Sep 6, 2020, at 3:07 PM, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> John,
> 
>>> On Sep 6, 2020, at 11:51 AM, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> In article <CF38E0F5-8BE9-4E7B-9060-5F858869439B@gmail.com>,
>>> Bob Hinden  <bob.hinden@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I much prefer the html version with an inline TOC and have gotten to dislike the TOC on the right mode.  I don’t
>>> find it helpful at all.
>>> 
>>>> Anyone have some greasemonkey to "undo" this bit of css?
>>> 
>>> I would like to be able to turn off the TOC on the right too!
>> 
>> If you make your window narrower, the TOC disappears into a pulldown tab in the top corner.
> 
> I was aware of that.   I would still like to only have an inline TOC and nothing on the right.
> 
> Bob

I was always frustrated with the HTMLized version of drafts in the past because there was so much potential to have better indexing, internal and external referencing, better fonts, readability, etc.

I think the new HTML v3 stuff is a great step in the right direction. It may still need some tweaks but, overall, I’m encouraged.

Can you guys give some specific examples of things besides the TOC that need improved?

Thanks,
Tom

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email