Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal draft formatting standards required
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal draft formatting standards required



On Sun, 2009-07-05, Yaakov Stein wrote:
> OK, here is what happens on my netbook using your method.

> Original

>     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>    |     Type      |    Length     |R|T|  Transport flags  |  Res  |
>    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>    |                              MTU                              |
>    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


> What I see :


>     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
>  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 
> 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>    |     Type      |    L
> ength     |R|T|  Transpor
> t flags  |  Res  |
>    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>    |                     
>          MTU             
>                  |
>    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

What sort of editable input, handled by what sort of presentation
mechanism, would solve this case?

And, if it involves horizontal scrolling and/or zooming in or out, why
wouldn't that also handle plain text, too?

-- 
Bill McQuillan <McQuilWP at pobox.com>


Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.