[rfc-i] Pagination requirements
jhildebr at cisco.com
Tue May 22 17:40:03 PDT 2012
On 5/22/12 5:59 PM, "Martin Rex" <mrex at sap.com> wrote:
> I do _not_ have a problem with others creating special printouts that
> fit their needs. But it would be stupid to create a brittle format
> of a standard for which no two persons can create 100% matching
> printouts _by_default_.
Nobody created a 100% matching printout with the line-printer format. If I
had a different daisy wheel loaded, it would look different. I still
disagree that this has ever been a requirement.
>> No it doesn't. Printing the current format is an absolute mess, unless you
>> have a vintage line printer.
> Proably untrue. There is a PDF version for existing RFCs available at
Those aren't canonical, and may not even match the canonical version in
text, since nobody checks for that.
> for those impaired environments that can not produce reasonable printouts
> from ASCII text.
Such as... Every modern OS? ^L just isn't semantic anymore.
> So if your work environment can not cope with the fairly trivial task of
> printing vintage LP, and you NEITHER can print the PDF version of it from
> tools.ietf.org, then you should REALLY replace your work enviornment,
> because it is broken beyond fixing.
Walk me through what you'd do on Windows7, for example, to print the
canonical version. Places where I don't have easy access to "lpr" on the
>>> 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.
> Most of the standards that are truely relevant today are 10+ years old.
Let's stop, then. Declare "victory" for the IETF, and shut it down.
> I have a printed copy of ISO/IEC 9899:1990, and use it regularly.
> The drawback with ISO standards is, that few of them are freely available
> online and with even fewer of them its possible to provide an URL to
> specific sections or pages that others can use.
So let's not move the ongoing work to the ISO.
More information about the rfc-interest