3 ms·

Am I the only one who finds the HTML rendered version[1] from the IETF site easier to read than the one from the rfc-editor site? [1] https://datatracker.ietf.

Am I the only one who finds the HTML rendered version[1] from the IETF site easier to read than the one from the rfc-editor site? [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9114 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9114

capableweb 4y ago
Am I the only one who think there should be a "Am I the only one?" law named after some famous internet citizen who said something clever about "Am I the only one..." messages? As one data point, I find https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9114.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9114.html easier on the eyes, mainly because of the font choice. I also like that I can link directly to titles (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9114.html#name-other-schemes https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9114.html#name-other-schem...) where the title itself is visible in the URL rather than just the section-number (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9114.html#section-3.1.2 https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9114.html#section-3.1.2) as if I'm participating in a discussion about the RFC and links are being thrown around, I can know which section is being referred to without opening the link. But, I can also see how some people prefer the datatracker viewer. The only thing it's really missing is a Table of Contents as a sidebar so it's easier to navigate. Otherwise they are mostly the same.
- dfawcus 4y ago
  Actually, it is that sidebar navigation which is one of the things bugging me, making the whole RFC harder to read. That said, when I'm implementing, I often refer to the text versions - especially as they're easier to diff. As to ToC, that 9114 render seems particularly bad for some reason. Whereas this one does have a ToC with links: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4128 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4128 That said, if I disable CSS (uMatrix) for the rfc-editor version, the ToC appears inline near the start, and looks a lot nicer. Possibly nicer then than the datatracker render.
eadmund 4y ago
I'm with you. I don't know who decided that RFCs should be displayed in a proportional font, but he was IMHO mistaken. At least they are still available as plain text.

capableweb 4y ago

Am I the only one who think there should be a "Am I the only one?" law named after some famous internet citizen who said something clever about "Am I the only one..." messages? As one data point, I find https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9114.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9114.html easier on the eyes, mainly because of the font choice. I also like that I can link directly to titles (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9114.html#name-other-schemes https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9114.html#name-other-schem...) where the title itself is visible in the URL rather than just the section-number (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9114.html#section-3.1.2 https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9114.html#section-3.1.2) as if I'm participating in a discussion about the RFC and links are being thrown around, I can know which section is being referred to without opening the link. But, I can also see how some people prefer the datatracker viewer. The only thing it's really missing is a Table of Contents as a sidebar so it's easier to navigate. Otherwise they are mostly the same.

dfawcus 4y ago
Actually, it is that sidebar navigation which is one of the things bugging me, making the whole RFC harder to read. That said, when I'm implementing, I often refer to the text versions - especially as they're easier to diff. As to ToC, that 9114 render seems particularly bad for some reason. Whereas this one does have a ToC with links: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4128 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4128 That said, if I disable CSS (uMatrix) for the rfc-editor version, the ToC appears inline near the start, and looks a lot nicer. Possibly nicer then than the datatracker render.

eadmund 4y ago

I'm with you. I don't know who decided that RFCs should be displayed in a proportional font, but he was IMHO mistaken. At least they are still available as plain text.