[rfc-i] Data point [Re: Fwd:I-D ACTION:draft-hoffman-utf8-rfcs-03.txt]
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Tue Oct 7 12:42:22 PDT 2008
Joe Touch wrote:
>> Again; use a web browser and navigate to the HTML version on
>> tools.ietf.org. It will print properly.
> Please explain. HTML doesn't preserve page boundaries on printout.
You need a script that finds the boundaries, and inserts the right kind
off CSS-for-print styling.
tools.ietf.org has been doing this for a long time now (again: see
> How do I take draft-hoffman-utf8-rfcs-03.txt and print it out preserving
> page boundaries AND UTF-8 characters in Vista?
Run it through the same script
(<http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/>), and open the HTML in a browser.
>> Formfeeds in UTF-8 are the same thing as in ASCII. I think I said so
>> already, didn't I?
>> So if you use the information from that very side to get info about how
>> to include a form feed into ASCII, you will face the *identical* problem.
>> What does that tell us? Editor support for embedding form feeds is a
>> problem. That has *nothing* to do with UTF-8.
> It's not editor support. It's a site that tells you how to insert FFs
> that is incorrect.
So if I find 10 sites that claim that Microsoft Word sucks, would that
stop you from using it?
> The point here isn't whether the editor can do it, the point is that at
> least one large reference site has incorrect information on how to do
> it. That says "confusion in the community" to me.
So we really need to stop using text/plain, as inserting form feeds is
>> Many generate RFCs using xml2rfc without that kind of editor and can
>> live with it, or even consider it a feature (less distraction).
> Sure. People also create lithographs using a chisel. That's fine, but I
> don't see why a 'step forward' in supporting character sets has to push
> us a step backward in how we write docs. (for those of us using Word,
> xml2rfc is a step backwards - about 20 years back, into nroff and scribe
It's a matter of taste. You won't convince me that Word is superior. I
won't convince you that XML is superior.
>>> For reading the docs, we can use Wordpad.
>>> As to printing the docs, there's NO path forward yet that preserves both
>>> UTF-8 and FFs.
>> That is incorrect. Again: run the document through a filter to HTML, and
>> print from a browser. That is one way that is known that it *will* work.
>> There may be more.
> No it doesn't. My browser does not understand or honor FFs.
>> For instance, import it into Word and print from there.
> I tried this, and it works.
> So now I need commercial software to view and print RFCs in ways that
> preserve page boundaries?
> You're considering this a viable path?
No, I just mentioned another path, as you seem to like Word.
>> I think it's agreed that *displaying* the RFC is simple (just use a web
> Not preserving page breaks. Open your browser, and do a print preview to
> see why.
>> but that printing isn't. That's the same for both ASCII and
>> UTF-8. I personally don't care at all. I don't print things anymore.
> No it's not the same for ASCII. I can view and print and preserve page
> boundaries in both in Wordpad, which is free on Windows.
I just tried and it doesn't work. What steps do I need to follow to get
>> For ASCII, you seem to have found a solution that works for you on
>> Windows. It's definitely not obvious for people who don't know already.
> There are only two editors that come with Windows - Notepad and Wordpad.
> If one doesn't work, and you try the other, that's not exactly obscure.
I just tried it and it didn't work for me. Maybe my printing defaults
are different -- the default layout I get is to narrow (lines break that
shouldn't) and not long enough (footers appear on the next side).
>> I have told you about another one that will work both for ASCII and
>> UTF-8. How many ways do we need?
> You've shown me a way that works only if I use commercial software.
Why can't we just rely on a format and software that's the base of the
WWW. It *does* work.
More information about the rfc-interest