[rfc-i] Pagination requirements
touch at isi.edu
Thu May 24 11:23:03 PDT 2012
On 5/24/2012 11:10 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 5/24/12 12:08 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>> On 5/24/2012 11:04 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>> If we are able to move to a model in which multiple output formats can
>>> be produced, then we can vastly improve the experience for those who
>>> aren't attached to printed words on "the paper device", while not
>>> degrading the print experience since one of the output formats would be
>>> exactly what we produce today (or some reasonable facsimile).
>> I think this whole thread went off the rails by claiming that the
>> canonical format would need to satisfy the output requirements.
> Clarifying question: by "canonical format" do you mean the input format
> or the output format?
I mean the archival format, which need not be either.
More information about the rfc-interest