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

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de>
To: erosen at cisco.com
Cc: tbray at textuality.com, IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf at ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 17:08:17 +0200
In-reply-to: <30254.1246892312 at erosen-linux>
References: <30254.1246892312 at erosen-linux>

Eric Rosen wrote:

huge  number of  mobile devices  that  handle HTML  effortlessly and  IETF
legacy ASCII not at all


HTML is  a good presentation format, but  as an archival format  it seems to
leave a lot to be desired, as the included links always seem to go stale.
...


But that's a problem of the link targets, not the document format, right?

large number  of standard  office printers that  print HTML  instantly and

correctly


My experiences printing HTML docs are a bit different, I guess.


In generic, or HTML as produced by tools.ietf.org, xml2rfc, or rfc2629.xslt?

...


BR, Julian

References:
- Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal draft formatting standards required
  - From: Eric Rosen

Prev by Date: Re: Releasing xml2rfc 1.34pre3?
Next by Date: Re: Releasing xml2rfc 1.34pre3?
Previous by thread: Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal draft formatting standards required
Next by thread: Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal draft formatting standards required
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

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

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

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