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

[Anders Rundgren <[e-mail]>]

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.

RfcMarkup seems to be the current standard for communicating RFC.

Making HTML the standard probably requires more work and PIs.  XHTML is deprecated.

New problems:
------------
BTW, my recent XML V3 submission did not generate an HTML version at all!
My previous XML V2 submissions did this automatically.

The HTML output for Web tool doesn't produce any output. It says it doesn't find the file :-(
The URL input began to fail:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/cyberphone/ietf-json-canon/gh-pages/xmlv3/draft-rundgren-json-canonicalization-scheme.xml

Cheers,
Anders

> 
> The format(s) to look for are IMHO HTML for on-screen, and HTML or PDF
> for print. AFAIC, plain text is here because textual diffs work well,
> and because it might have advantages when copy/pasted into plain text
> email (or source code, or....). Making tables prettier doesn't seem to
> be relevant for that (or might actually hurt).
> 
>> It is not a big deal though, <artwork> saved my day anyway :-)
>> ...
> 
> IMHO the wrong decision. If it's a table, use a table. Otherwise you'll
> end up with ugly output in the other output formats.
> 
> Best regards, Julian
>