Re: [xml2rfc] Tables in XML V3 - A downgrade

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

On 14.09.2019 08:03, Anders Rundgren wrote:
> Hi Julian,
>
> On 2019-09-14 07:25, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> On 14.09.2019 07:08, Anders Rundgren wrote:
>>> On 2019-09-13 18:45, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>>> On 13.09.2019 17:25, Anders Rundgren wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>> Well, RFC 7997 only talks about Unicode in author-provided data
>>>>> which is
>>>>> not the case here.
>>>>> The same goes for bullets lists.
>>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> I think we need to look at the role of the plain text output in the
>>>> future. The original plan was to make it as bare as possible, not even
>>>> paginated. Not sure why we deviated from that.
>>>
>>> Paginated RfcMarkup is rather reducing readability and browsers can
>>> print fairly well these days.
>>
>> Print plain text?
>
> I just thought that pagination was intended for that purpose.
> If not pagination has no purpose.

With all due respect, it's pretty easy to make absolute statements like
these.

The current plan was agreed upon after long mailing list discussions,
many years ago. It's a compromise, yes.

People in fact do like pagination, even when not printing (I don't
belong to that group). It was very hard to get to where we are right
now, where pagination is just a service for certain output formats
(originally planned for PDF only), not something inherent in the
canonical RFC format.

That said, I still don't understand what you're referring to when you
say "Paginated RfcMarkup is rather reducing readability and browsers can
print fairly well these days."

>>> RfcMarkup seems to be the current standard for communicating RFC.
>>>
>>> Making HTML the standard probably requires more work and PIs.  XHTML is
>>> deprecated.
>>
>> The "standard" is XML, in that the XML document is normative. HTML will
>> be generated from it.
>
> Sure, XML is the standard for creating RFC, I was rather referring
> to links to published RFCs used everywhere.
>
> HTML is currently NOT generated for V3 submissions.

I'm sure it's planned. And yes, I agree that it should happen ASAP.

>> I don't get your point about PIs, nor the one about XHTML.
>
>
> Since you as an author would like your precious text to be rendered
> as good as possible, I guess that SVG would not be a part of RfcMarkup
> making "line-art" variants a necessity.

I do not necessarily agree that I would always supply line art as well.

> PIs could be used to keep the XML intact.

I still don't get that.

> XHTML is a deprecated W3C standard currently used by RFCs.  It is not
> a problem but switching to HTML5 is preferable.

"currently used by RFCs" where?

> ...

Best regards, Julian