Re: [xml2rfc-dev] [v3] Please help review v3 files

["Martin Thomson" <[e-mail]>]

On Sat, Aug 3, 2019, at 06:05, Sandy Ginoza wrote:
> a) one of the things we talked about is making the RFC number stand out 
> somehow.  Right now it’s getting lost and because there are no longer 
> page headers/footers, it’s the only place where the RFC number appears. 
>  Henrik had some suggestions about how to do this, but I don’t think 
> any final decisions were made.  

I don't think that this is necessary.
 
> b) as you noted below, longer URLs are getting truncated by the toc in 
> the HTML/PDF (the text file is ok).  No matter how wide I make my 
> screen, I can’t see the full URL and I can’t scroll right. [Note, 
> however: it is possible to scroll right if the window is smaller, so 
> that the TOC doesn’t appear on the right.]  More info below.

I found the offending style rule.  This was clearly an intentional decision by the original designer.  I didn't revert that change, but will do so based on your feedback.  It's not like you need the text of the link to know where it points to in HTML.

> c) potentially add a line break after long citation tags in the 
> references section.  

That's something that I've wanted to know how to do for a long time.  My CSS chops are fairly primitive, so maybe there is a way, but I just don't know how.  The fix here, at least in my opinion, is to use shorter tags.  In kramdown-rfc2629, you construct links using {{?SHORT-TAG=I-D.ietf-some-really-long-draft-name}}.  The same is possible in XML, but it's been too long since I did any of that for me to remember.

> > Section 3.1 of the second sample has some very odd formatting.  It has lots of indentation of varying sizes, and some blank lines that I can't really grok.  Maybe it looks OK in text, but the HTML is hard to look at.
> 
> Agree - I think we can make this better by updating the XML a bit 
> differently.  
> This is part of a discussion we’ve having with Heather regarding 
> whether we need to use the seemingly right list style vs get the right 
> display.  

I think that the problem here adjacent lists and <aside>, which have similar styling, except that <aside> is given extra padding above and below.  It's almost like this could benefit from reducing the variance in spacing and using other styling to denote <aside>, like italics.

Regarding the pilcrow on uncaptioned figures, it might be possible to put the pilcrow beside the figures if they could be narrowed relative to the page.  The current design allows 70 column figures with essentially no additional space, so that would be a very disruptive change to the entire design.