[rfc-i] Pagination requirements

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Thu May 24 11:12:23 PDT 2012



On 5/24/2012 11:05 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 24 May 2012, at 19:54 , Joe Touch wrote:
>
>> I'm confused - someone else claimed that reflow is essential to
>> usingvariable-width fonts.
>
>> I'm demonstrating it's not true except for trivial aesthetics.
>
>> What [part is ridiculous about my response?
>
> By way of example I included 72 i's and 72 w's in my message. Even if
> you don't care that the i's leave an enormous amount of unused space,
> how exactly do you intend to fit 72 w's on a single line?

Maybe you do, and maybe you don't. If you don't - if your screen is too 
small - you need to pan.

> The obvious answer is that the code in charge of displaying the text
> performs word wrap taking per letter spacing into account. This has
> been standard operating procedure since the advent of graphical user
> interfaces and typesetting. Claiming that we can forego that feature
> sound pretty ridiculous to me.

That feature won't fix your example. Variable width might make SOME long 
"words" fit on a smaller screen than fixed-width would. However, with 
the exception of figures, the RFC Editor should be breaking words 
anywhere near that long anyway.

...
> But claiming that 72 characters per line is just fine even with a
> variable with font is not a useful contribution to the discussion.

I'm not claiming that - if the text is reflowed, then it isn't limited 
to 72 chars per line. But it also isn't necessarily variable-width fonts 
either.

Joe


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list