[rfc-i] Pagination requirements

Joe Hildebrand 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:
>> 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).

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.

-- 
Joe Hildebrand



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list