W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > spec-prod@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: IETF RFC format <-> W3C pubrules

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 08:42:18 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDALpgbD+Q_q5s2baW42kM=UZH+GJyt5SmGFQgzkNejJJA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
Cc: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, "spec-prod@w3.org" <spec-prod@w3.org>
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 4:36 AM, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, 29 April 2012 at 05:11, Doug Schepers wrote:
>> I think IETF, and the Web community, would benefit from a well-style
>> HTML version of IETF specs.
> I agree. But, irrespective of how they look stylistically, I think most would just settle for normative HTML specs from the IETF with proper marked-up/linkable definitions, algorithms, and sections (and particularly, for the IETF deprecate the paginated text-only format so their is only one authoritative source in HTML).

+1. Aligning the styles and structure would be cool, but unnecessary.
All I want for Christmas is RFCs in HTML and utf-8, properly linked up
and anchored.  The fact that they still produce pure-text documents
formatted for printing 80-column wide is either a travesty or a really
awesome troll.

Received on Sunday, 29 April 2012 15:43:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:42:19 UTC