On 19-Feb-25 10:58, Jean Mahoney wrote:
Hi all,
An update about the rfc-editor.org website redesign below -
On 2/17/25 8:51 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 6:49 PM Brian E Carpenter
<brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com <mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On 18-Feb-25 15:26, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 6:17 PM Brian E Carpenter
<brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com <mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com>
<mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
<mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com>>> wrote:
>
> This is off topic, but I want to register some disagreement.
> On 18-Feb-25 12:46, Bob Hinden wrote:
> ...
>
> >> A simple question might help sharpen this point: should
people be presented with the RFC text or the info page? I assert
that people want the text first, the metadata second. Our processes
(and rfc-editor.org <http://rfc-editor.org> <http://rfc-editor.org
<http://rfc-editor.org>>) say the opposite.
> >
> > I agree with that and it matches my own use. Almost all
of the time, I am looking for the actual RFC.
> >
>
> With all due respect, Bob, Martin and Eric are not typical
consumers.
>
>
> Agreed.
>
>
> I disagree that the actual RFC should be first on the landing
page, for two reasons:
>
> Major reason: Nobody should consult an RFC before checking
whether it has been obsoleted or updated, and whether it has errata.
The landing page should take care of that, and it's especially
important for the "consumer" category.
>
> (It's true that regular users aren't going to perform such a
check every time they need to review a detail. But they are not the
target for the SEO-ed landing pages.)
>
>
> I see that this is what you think consumers *should* want, but
are you sure it's what they actually want? Moreover, it seems like
that kind of meta-information could be easily conveyed with the RFC
itself.
Well, yes, except for that awkward rule about never changing the
semantic content after publication.
I agree though - if what the user gets is (for example) the HTML
version preceded by a banner with the metadata information, that
would be fine. That's just a design issue. The underlying point is
to ensure that the consumer gets the product warnings.
[JM] The revamp of rfc-editor.org is currently under development. Please
see the screen captures for the new display of RFC pages here (note that
the title and text shown are place holders):
https://github.com/ietf-tools/rfced-www/pull/6
This display will replace the current info page. Banners will highlight
whether the RFC is obsolete and/or has been updated. A new sidebar has
tabs for the table of contents, about this RFC, and errata (not
populated in these screenshots).
There is also a display for mobile clients and for readers who have
selected dark mode for their browser display.
I like the look of that, for pre-RFC8650 RFCs. For modern ones, will
it display the preferred HTML version?
Thanks
Brian
Best regards,
Jean
I agree that that is valuable. FWIW, the datatracker page that is linked
from Google has this information in a sidebar.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9000 <https://
datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9000>
-Ekr
--
rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
