[rfc-i] Pagination requirements
touch at isi.edu
Thu May 24 10:43:35 PDT 2012
On 5/24/2012 10:30 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 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
The top search response in Google today is the tools page:
That page seems fine to me as output - it can default to HTML, and
includes links to the canonical .txt and PDF, as well as to errata where
I thought the "canonical" URL was supposed to be:
This doesn't work for some RFCs, though. IMO, it might be useful if the
"canonical" URL gave the same response as the tools page version.
>> 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
> talking about.
That's because the new requirements are based on "what do you want
besides what .txt gives you", and somewhat overlook what .txt already
provides that is being lost.
>>>>>> 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.
Only if you care about full text justification. Otherwise,
variable-width fonts display .txt just fine (with the exception of ASCII
diagrams, of course - but reflow destroys those too).
More information about the rfc-interest