[Tools-discuss] Re: rfcmarkup changes
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Tools-discuss] Re: rfcmarkup changes

Henrik Levkowetz wrote:

> Does this look good to you all?

No, the old version as near as possible to the "real" document
was better.  Please get rid of those strange <h1>.  It's ugly
for titles needing more than one line, if only the first line
is big.  Maybe use some fancy CSS colours or classes for such
decorations, but please no XHTML.  <h1> etc. within <pre> is
also invalid.

The page divider lines are unnecessary decorations, please use
CSS classes for such effects.  And please use external CSS, not
inline CSS.  Folks who like this can then create their own "RfC
skins" (shudder).

The class=grey" etc. stuff should be good enough.  You need an
additional id="xyz" whereever you have name="xyz" in anchors.
Maybe replace the dubious self-links href="#xyz" by id="xyz".

The self closing <span class="break"/> is unusual, better don't
use it unless you're 100% sure that it's valid and allowed in
all normative and non-normative XHTML appendices,   If that's
the case you would need <span class="break" /> adding a space.

Your logic to determine the header level is wrong, you should
get exactly one "h1" (to be replaced by a span class), all the
other h1 (now) should be some ersatz-"h2", all h2 should be an
ersatz-"h3", etc. 

A link to the plain text version would be nice, maybe in the
last line.  What's the idea of meta robots nofollow ?  And why
are there two identical link rel icons ?  One should be enough,
or is that a workaround for some browsers ? 

Please add lang="en" xml:lang="en" and the xmlns to the <html>.

The charset=iso-8859-1 is unlikely, if all is well that should
be us-ascii.  At some point in time it will be utf-8.

Frank



_______________________________________________
Tools-discuss mailing list
Tools-discuss at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss

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