
Usable version of RFC 2616 (HTTP/1.1) - r11t
http://rfc2616.com/
======
devmonk
Look nice but:

\- Needs to have a search (that lists sections found, lets you skip between
finds, etc.)

\- Needs index, even though tabs are nice

\- scrollbar in middle of page != friendly (use vertical space in page and
page scroll)

------
thirdstation
Why is this version more useable than the already available versions?

I prefer the text version myself. I can use it in more places than this HTML
version.

------
zppx
I think this version much more usable: <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616>

------
jhrobert
To debug my wiki engine, I did some experiment with RFCs.

RFCs as wikis: <http://simpliwiki.com/yours/SomeRfcs>

This is an other definition of "usable" I guess.

I added an orange visual cue when scrolling, to make it easier to spot where
new content starts.

------
smackfu
Don't really get the point. Is the idea to get it up in the Google rankings
and then add ads?

~~~
rmoriz
don't try this with ISO standards (not even only the domain)

<http://www.iso.org/iso/name_and_logo.htm> => WIPO

------
jhrobert
Have a look at the html source... some <http://www.intelli-
computing.com/wordpress/?super_sale=DDDD> code in there...

------
gojomo
Great idea. Weak implementation. Compared to even the TXT version that's my
top Google hit for [rfc2616], this is harder to search and fits less text into
the same sized viewport. (Devoting ~40% of the viewport to informationless
deepCyan background isn't very helpful.)

------
bhiggins
this is offensively not usable. just as an example, I can't grep the whole
document now. I think this is the wrong target market for fake usability.

~~~
jallmann
Agreed. IMO, the only thing that needs to be done to make a plain text RFC
more 'usable' is to perhaps add anchor links where needed, such as when other
sections are referenced.

~~~
qjz
For your pleasure:

<http://tools.ietf.org/rfcmarkup?rfc=2616>

Type in any RFC number for similar results:

<http://tools.ietf.org/rfcmarkup>

