[rfc-i] Pagination requirements

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Thu May 24 09:56:26 PDT 2012



On 5/24/2012 8:30 AM, Joe Hildebrand wrote:
> On 5/24/12 9:21 AM, "Joe Touch"<touch at isi.edu>  wrote:
>
>> I gave them but you dismissed them as aesthetic.
>
> Could you please just reiterate them very quickly in a few words?  The ones
> I remember were:
>
> - page numbers that were consistent across browsers (dealt with by not
> needing page number references)
> - page numbers in the table of contents (no answer yet in current browsers)
> - widows and orphans (no answer yet in current browsers, but more aesthetic,
> unless you can articulate a functional issue)
> - examples splitting page boundaries (answered with page-break-inside:
> avoid)
>
> What am I missing?

Ability to indicate blocks that are not page-split (e.g., for figures, 
or if desired for lists or code examples).

Page numbers *or* section numbers are needed as header or footers on 
printed material. Otherwise the printed material is just as "useless" 
(or inconvenient) as the current .txt is on a smartphone.

Joe


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list