[rfc-i] Pagination requirements
jhildebr at cisco.com
Thu May 24 10:03:51 PDT 2012
On 5/24/12 10:56 AM, "Joe Touch" <touch at isi.edu> wrote:
> 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:
>> 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).
I thought that was my fourth point above. Am I missing a subtlety?
> 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.
Let's put a pin in that for the moment until I've got something concrete to
show you. I don't think it's easy enough to visualize in the abstract.
More information about the rfc-interest