4 ms·

I don't think anyone would favor a video over a RFC. But already a RFC reader makes it a more pleasant experience than just the raw RFC you linked https://www

I don't think anyone would favor a video over a RFC. But already a RFC reader makes it a more pleasant experience than just the raw RFC you linked https://www.rfcreader.com/#rfc5545 https://www.rfcreader.com/#rfc5545

tdeck 6y ago
I'm not a huge fan of text-only but I definitely find the original easier to read than this website's version from a contrast perspective. I can't think why they would choose gray text on a gray background.
SoSoRoCoCo 6y ago
Ironically, the fact that the reader is even POSSIBLE is because of the neutral format of the source RFC. You sorta shot yourself in the foot there.
- felixfbecker 6y ago
  It would be just as possible if RFCs were written in HTML, like most web standards are. You probably wouldn't even need a reader at that point, but you could easily customize the styling with CSS (even user CSS with a browser extension) or just use the reading mode of your browser.
  - SoSoRoCoCo 6y ago
    Now that I consider this, you're right. Semantic HTML was designed exactly for this.
sixstringtheory 6y ago
A couple things here: 1) that RFC reader is alright, but it still isn't good on a phone. If you view the PDF version of any RFC on ietf.org, it has a hyperlinked table of contents, so you don't need a javascript version of it like what rfcreader.com provides, and you can store that PDF offline. You can also hit the TXT version of any RFC and it's passable in Safari's Reader View, I'd say better than rfcreader.com (I also tried Reader View on rfcreader.com and it has other issues, so it's like trading one set of problems for another, but I see no clear winner, so for me the tie breaker goes to ietf.org); 2) the OP made the point that text is preferable to video–I happen to agree–and I was responding to the hyperbolic (and again, subjective) pushback regarding "ugly" text, explaining a way that it is still functionally superior to videos (which can have wildly diverse quality issues of their own); 3) I didn't link the RFC, that was someone else.

tdeck 6y ago

I'm not a huge fan of text-only but I definitely find the original easier to read than this website's version from a contrast perspective. I can't think why they would choose gray text on a gray background.

SoSoRoCoCo 6y ago

Ironically, the fact that the reader is even POSSIBLE is because of the neutral format of the source RFC. You sorta shot yourself in the foot there.

felixfbecker 6y ago
It would be just as possible if RFCs were written in HTML, like most web standards are. You probably wouldn't even need a reader at that point, but you could easily customize the styling with CSS (even user CSS with a browser extension) or just use the reading mode of your browser.
- SoSoRoCoCo 6y ago
  Now that I consider this, you're right. Semantic HTML was designed exactly for this.

sixstringtheory 6y ago

A couple things here: 1) that RFC reader is alright, but it still isn't good on a phone. If you view the PDF version of any RFC on ietf.org, it has a hyperlinked table of contents, so you don't need a javascript version of it like what rfcreader.com provides, and you can store that PDF offline. You can also hit the TXT version of any RFC and it's passable in Safari's Reader View, I'd say better than rfcreader.com (I also tried Reader View on rfcreader.com and it has other issues, so it's like trading one set of problems for another, but I see no clear winner, so for me the tie breaker goes to ietf.org); 2) the OP made the point that text is preferable to video–I happen to agree–and I was responding to the hyperbolic (and again, subjective) pushback regarding "ugly" text, explaining a way that it is still functionally superior to videos (which can have wildly diverse quality issues of their own); 3) I didn't link the RFC, that was someone else.