On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 02:12:04PM +0200, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: > On 2015-04-23 14:01, Ted Lemon wrote: > > On Apr 23, 2015, at 6:40 AM, Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > wrote: > >> Do you have any comments on how this displays for you? > >> > >> https://zin.tools.ietf.org/pt/draft-ietf-idr-error-handling-19-responsive.html > > > >> > > Too small (not that you were asking me). The problem with a > > responsive design in this case is that there is no need for it. We > > just want the browser to display the text in a font that's readable > > on the display, and to flow it correctly, which it should do based on > > the xml2rfc html output. > > The first problem I was trying to solve was that for me, the text without > responsive design was too small to read comfortably on my tablets. +1 relative font size (1em), even though it doesn't produce the best results in all my {device, browser} combinations. If we can't find a choice that works for everyone on all their devices -- and almost certainly we will not be able to! -- then add a button to the htmlized I-D for bigger/smaller font. Tablet and smartphone browsers all too often have font size +/- buttons that are much more difficult to reach than a button on the page would be. > I was assuming, maybe incorrectly, that other people might like to be able > to read on tablets, too. You were assuming that your {tablet, browser} choices are representative. > > I wonder if you are reacting to the current HTML output of XML2RFC > > v2. > > No, I've never found that particularly readable, and don't use it. That too should be fixed to have a +/- font size button at the top. Nico --