[rfc-i] Pagination requirements
touch at isi.edu
Thu May 24 11:19:41 PDT 2012
On 5/24/2012 11:08 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2012-05-24 19:54, Joe Touch wrote:
>> On 5/24/2012 10:49 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>>> On 24 May 2012, at 19:43 , Joe Touch wrote:
>>>>> "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
>>> I would find it easier to take your real concerns seriously if you
>>> didn't multiplex them with such ridiculousness.
>> I'm confused - someone else claimed that reflow is essential to using
>> variable-width fonts.
>> I'm demonstrating it's not true except for trivial aesthetics.
> You did not. It doesn't work for anything that uses blank spaces for
> adjustment. Consider indented lists, tables, ABNF productions etc. So
> no, it's not only an artwork problem.
I'm claiming that variable fonts does NOT require reflow.
Variable fonts + reflow still destroys lists, tables, etc. UNLESS there
is other support for spacing - e.g., tabs or indent changes.
Variable fonts + such tabs/indents works fine, and does NOT *require*
reflow. It doesn't reflow, but it still gives non-scrambled output.
Yes - TXT is not HTML, and TXT requires fixed fonts to make the indents
work on things like tables and lists, in addition to art. This is more
important for tables and code than lists per se - lists are just
shifted. In the Word template, tables and code use the same style - that
of figures - for exactly that reason, i.e., so Word won't reflow the
text at edit-time.
More information about the rfc-interest