Nico,
On 16-May-25 04:07, Nico Williams wrote:
On Thu, May 15, 2025 at 11:50:13AM +1000, Martin Thomson wrote:
On Thu, May 15, 2025, at 11:44, StJohns, Michael wrote:
Just took a look from an iPadMiniusing Safari. Perfectly readable.
And I’m myopic. But they are a bit dense.
All screens are different. I have a very large screen and I'm unable
to read the text. If you want a format that is not too subjective or
dependent on screen size, check out Figure 17 in the PDF format.
Ah, that works. On the HTML at the datatracker[0] that figure is
unreadable,
I assume you mean the one that the tracker quaintly calls "htmlized"?
To actually *read* an RFC I prefer the genuine HTML at rfc-editor.org,
because it has a much nicer font and less clutter, but in either version
the SVGs are perfectly legible and zoom works. That's using Firefox on
Windows 10 on an ancient Acer laptop with a 14 inch/35 cm screen, and
wearing my reading glasses. Maybe a laptop is better for this purpose,
because you can get as close to the screen as you need.
You are absolutely correct about the reflowing problem, but that's
intrinsic to HTML.
Brian
and increasing the magnification reaches a limit where the
whole rendering reflows and I have to scroll and scroll to get back to
the image, and even after five <ctrl>+'s it's just barely readable.
Whereas figure 17 on the PDF is readable after just three <ctrl>+'s it's
readable, and it never reflows and rerenders.
[0] The datatracker interface is normally my preferred interface for
reading RFCs in the browser, because the sidebar shows metadata I
care a lot about, such as RFCs updating or obsoleting the one I'm
reading.
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
