[rfc-i] Pagination requirements
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Thu May 24 08:05:14 PDT 2012
On 2012-05-24 16:54, Joe Touch wrote:
>> You haven't answered my question about what *functional* features you're
>> missing from printed HTML. I understand that the current state-of-the art
>> doesn't have adequate controls over widows and orphans, but that's an
>> aesthetic issue that doesn't impair your undersatnding of the doc.
> Nor does the way the current HTML of non xml2rfc docs displays on phones, but that appears to be driving the desire for change.
The main reason is readability and usability in general, no matter what
the device is.
>> Based on some tests I performed today, support for page-break-before and
>> page-break-after is a little hit-and-miss, but page-break-inside works well,
>> and that's the one I care about most so that examples don't break pages when
>> The folks that don't like the lineprinter format have specific functional
>> requirements that the status quo does not offer.
> Sure - but you're moving the problem and inconvenience to those who want printouts.
BS. People who want to print out are inconvenienced *right now*.
> I don't agree with optimizing for phones and tiny readers vs paper and full size readers and laptop screens.
Full size readers benefit from a richer format as much as small devices.
Best regards, Julian
More information about the rfc-interest