Subject: Whether to left-justify or center the display of Internet Drafts in a browser window

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:26:56 -0500

A recent change to the tools page html-ized versions of Internet Drafts now
has them centered in the browser window. See, for example,
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-mpls-sr-over-ip-01

However, other views of drafts continue to be left-justified in the browser
window. See, for example:
https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-xu-mpls-sr-over-ip-01.txt and
https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-xu-mpls-sr-over-ip-01.html

I corresponded with Henrik about this change, and he said that it was at a
user's request, and my complaint is the first he's received.

I myself much prefer the previous behavior, having all three views
left-justified in the window.

At the very least, all three views should be consistent.

So this email is an attempt to find a consensus on how to display drafts in
a browser window, left-justified or centered, and whether all of the views
should be consistent.

Thanks.
Andy

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 19:48:47 +0100

> user's request, and my complaint is the first he's received.

Thanks for posting to the list about this, Andy.

> a browser window, left-justified or centered, and whether all of the views

For me personally, centered htmlized text or left-justified both work;
I have no particular opinion in this matter.  I'll go with whatever consensus
appears here.

Best regards,

	Henrik

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 19:08:42 -0000

> I have no particular opinion in this matter.  I'll go with whatever consensus

I don't mind either way: both approaches work well on my devices.

Support both and make it a datatracker preference? Or does that run foul of the datatracker/tool boundary?

Anyway, thanks for the work you do Henrik.

Adrian

---

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:33:09 -0600

> a browser window, left-justified or centered, and whether all of the views

My small change: I was unpleasantly surprised by the change when it
happened, but am confident that I can adapt to either just fine, provided
that the copy/paste issues at [1] get addressed somehow.

And I second Adrian's thanks to Henrik and the team for all they do!

-Ben

[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/EF5z55NuS4-MNr9ErYPhDv03Ml4

I suppose I should have followed up on why Henrik's reply never actually
made it to my INBOX, but (1) it's surely too late for logs to still be
around, and (2) I'm more inclined to blame MIT's systems than the IETF's
anyway.  (For Henrik's benefit, I'm using both Chrome and Firefox on
linux.)

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 20:55:44 +0100

Hi Ben,

> that the copy/paste issues at [1] get addressed somehow.

I sent a reply to you regarding this on 2018-11-16 22:57 CET, asking you
to try out a tentative solution.  I understand from what you write below
that it probably didn't reach you, either.  In that message I pointed at
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-levkowetz-xml2rfc-v3-implementation-notes-05
and asked you to check whether it worked for you, but the change I introduced
to address the copy/paste issue should be live for any recently htmlized
documents by now.

> And I second Adrian's thanks to Henrik and the team for all they do!

Thanks :-)

> anyway.  (For Henrik's benefit, I'm using both Chrome and Firefox on

Ok.  I'll re-send my latest and check my logs, to see how MIT answers my
server (also linux).

Best regards,

	Henrik

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 20:59:21 +0100

> of the datatracker/tool boundary?

Yes, these are generated / refreshed every few weeks, and otherwise cached
on disk; the htmlization is sufficiently cpu-intensive that per-user
generation would not work with the current code and server iron.

> Anyway, thanks for the work you do Henrik.

:-)

Best,

	Henrik

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 12:10:17 -0800

Hi Henrik,

> I have no particular opinion in this matter.  I'll go with whatever consensus

I have a slight preference for the left-justified version.  It appears to make cut & paste work better (as noted in later email).

Bob

---

From: Mark Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2018 09:46:20 +1100

> On 1 Dec 2018, at 7:10 am, Bob Hinden <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Henrik,
> 
>> 

It also helps when you are stacking windows so you can see the draft and something else.  You don’t have to re-size to get the left margin on the left.
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742              INTERNET: [email-masked]

---

From: "Kurt Andersen (IETF)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 14:53:02 -0800

On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 2:46 PM Mark Andrews <[email-masked]> wrote:

>
> It also helps when you are stacking windows so you can see the draft and
> something else.  You don’t have to re-size to get the left margin on the
> left.
>

Excellent point - I've run into this myself.

--Kurt

---

From: Mary B <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 17:50:32 -0600

I totally agree with Mark.  I have a strong preference for left-justified.

Regards,
Mary.

On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 4:46 PM Mark Andrews <[email-masked]> wrote:

> > I have a slight preference for the left-justified version.  It appears
> to make cut & paste work better (as noted in later email).
> >
> > Bob
>