[rfc-i] Pagination requirements
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Thu May 24 10:30:45 PDT 2012
On 2012-05-24 18:44, Joe Touch wrote:
> On 5/24/2012 8:26 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> On 2012-05-24 17:17, Joe Touch wrote:
>>> On May 24, 2012, at 8:05 AM, Julian Reschke<julian.reschke at gmx.de>
>>>> BS. People who want to print out are inconvenienced *right now*.
>>> There are PDFs right nw that print on most things fine.
>> The key issue is the canonical format that people find when getting the
>> "official" version of the RFC. *That* needs to work well.
>> It's nice to have alternate versions in different places, but these will
>> only help people who already know they exist.
> Google returns links to the HTML, which includes pointers to the txt and
> pdf versions.
I think a goal should be that the new default format is good enough so
that people actually link to it, and it shows up on top of the search
> No one version satisfies the requirements provided any better than the
> existing txt.
You lost me. It satisfies close to non of the requirements were are
>>>>> 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
>>> There is HTML right now with links too.
>> Paginated, not reflowing, links based on heuristics so sometimes broken,
>> no way for the author to provide more specific links.
>>> Again, is this all just to view the txt version on a phone?
>> Again, no. You can stop asking now.
> Hmm - then why do you keep giving it as an answer? What do you think we
> should interpret from the "need" to reflow text?
Believe it or not, even if we you take mobile devices out of the picture
there are still different screen sizes. "Refloweable" is also essential
when you want to be able non-monospaced fonts.
Best regards, Julian
More information about the rfc-interest