Re: [Tools-discuss] bug in XML2RFC

[Tom Pusateri <[e-mail]>]

> On Mar 22, 2020, at 8:18 PM, Martin Thomson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2020, at 18:13, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>> I still rely on the HTMLized version, and I think a lot of people do.
> 
> It's a useful baseline. Also, I find the new HTML borderline unreadable.  Mostly that comes down to line length.
> 
> I do prefer HTML, but I am happier with things like https://quicwg.org/base-drafts/draft-ietf-quic-transport.html or https://httpwg.org/http-extensions/draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure.html or https://mnot.github.io/I-D/how-did-that-get-into-the-repo/

It appears that it is going to be difficult to get general agreement on a new HTML native version.

I do like the QUIC example you list except for the font choice. I find the San Francisco from Apple, Roboto from Google, and then a simple Helvetica provide less eye strain than the multiple font families used in the QUIC example (cabincondensed, lora, oxygenmono).

Another minor issue with the QUIC example is how the Figure labels are too close to the next paragraph.

But I’ve also been frustrated for years with bugs in the HTMLized versions and just want them to go away. This is no criticism of Henrik and any other authors. It’s an impossible task to parse the TXT version and generate HTML.

Tom