[rfc-i] Pagination requirements
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Thu May 24 11:15:02 PDT 2012
On 2012-05-24 20:06, Joe Touch wrote:
> On 5/24/2012 10:51 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> On 2012-05-24 19:43, Joe Touch wrote:
>>>> Believe it or not, even if we you take mobile devices out of the
>>>> 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).
>> Oh my.
>> First of all, a format that supports reflowing of course needs to
>> understand what is monospaced.HTML does this. We have discussed this
>> here multiple times. It's really annoying that you keep bringing it up
>> as it was a hard problem nobody has solved.
> My point was that reflow has nothing to do with font spacing. You
> claimed it did.
Having variable-width fonts is of little use unless you can reflow the text.
>> That being said, text/plain indeed can be displayed in a variable-width
>> font, but that will not work well, because:
>> - we have indentations that rely on character width (such as certain
>> list types), and
> That just changes the amount of indent, but the relative indent remains
> the same.
Have a look at the nested list in
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5925#section-7.4>, where the indentation
level depends on the with of the space character plus other characters
used to indicate list numbering.
>> - one point of using a variable-width font is to increase the amount of
>> text that fits into a line, and having a hard line break of course makes
>> that impossible.
> Increasing the amount of text on a line using proportional vs. fixed is
> a *really* silly thing to be optimizing.
Well, silly me.
> Yes, hard breaks affect reflow, but reflow does not imply or require
> proportional spacing.
Again, see above.
More information about the rfc-interest