[rfc-i] Pagination requirements
Iljitsch van Beijnum
iljitsch at muada.com
Wed May 23 15:19:59 PDT 2012
On 24 May 2012, at 0:00 , Joe Touch wrote:
> There is NO utility to imposing silly requirements on the canonical format, including the ability to read an RFC on a smartphone.
Silliness is in the eye of the beholder...
I do agree that being able to display the canonical format well on a very small screen is not at the top of the list of priorities. But it's still a good thing to have if we can without onerous tradeoffs.
> how long do we expect the current limited resolutions to
> persist, though? Why are we even discussing a transient issue regarding
> the *canonical* format?
It's not a resolution issue. The tools.ietf HTML form of RFCs displays perfectly fine on my iPhone, but the letters are both very small and very thin (the latter is of course fixable) so it's hard to read. Human vision is not going to improve in the coming decades I don't think...
> I don't want TeX-level typesetting for paper printouts, but I'd like to not give up what I have now - some sense that there's control over page breaks when printing out.
HTML/CSS supports page breaks. So it's possible to start sections on a new page, although I'm not a fan of that, even on paper.
It would even be possible to insert page breaks and headers/footers that only display when desired by the user (presumably, when printing) every n characters or words, so we get to keep existing pagination.
More information about the rfc-interest