[rfc-i] Pagination requirements
jhildebr at cisco.com
Tue May 22 16:33:00 PDT 2012
On 5/22/12 5:13 PM, "Martin Rex" <mrex at sap.com> wrote:
> I have not found two browser which produce the exact same printout for
> a page, and I regularly run into problems where letters or words get
> truncated in the printout or graphics misplaced. The issue is much
> worse on printouts than it is onscreen.
Who cares if they produce the same output in any way? If it's legible, and
you have reference marks that I wrote about in my previous mail, printing
repeatability is a anti-requirement, particularly in the face of low-sight
individuals that would prefer to print out at a much larger font size.
> For a 100+ page document, I may not want to print everything at once
> all the time, so an option to print 20 pages today and print 20 more
> pages in 3 weeks AND having the printouts FIT TOGETHER as if printed
> in a single go, is a necessity.
No it's not a necessity. You can't do that with the current format on most
If your odd workflow is that important to you, you could always print to
PDF, and keep that around for stability.
> This does work perfectly with the
> existing RFC format.
No it doesn't. Printing the current format is an absolute mess, unless you
have a vintage line printer.
> And btw. I'm perfectly fine with the
> nostalgic 80-columns fixed pitch format.
That's clear from your vociferous defense of the status quo. Nostalgia has
a place and a time, but standards bodies aren't always that place.
More information about the rfc-interest