[rfc-i] Pagination requirements

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Fri May 25 07:01:53 PDT 2012


On 2012-05-25 15:49, Martin Rex wrote:
> Julian Reschke wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Reality check:
>>>
>>>     http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2246
>>
>> You realize that that's not "the" RFC format, right?
>
> And you realize that "current" Browsers is currently still
> the wrong tool to visualize&  print "plain/text", so it
> is extremely logical to use the HTML-ized version of
> the TXT documents with those, isn't it?

The point I'm trying to make is that that HTML version is something 
provided as a volunteer effort, and has no official standing.

If we like it (and I do like it compared to the text/plain version), we 
may want to discuss making it more official.

>>> prints pages correctly (on A4 paper) out-of-the-box with
>>>      Chrome on Win7
>>>      MSIE 8 on Win7
>>>      MSIE 8 on WinXP
>>>
>>> I had to change "scale" to 95% in Firefox 3.6 in PrintPreview to
>>
>> Note that 3.6 has been end-of-lifed a few weeks ago.
>
> Firefox 4-8 have been end-of-lifed even before that, so continuing
> to use FF 3.6 is pretty reasonable.

Hmm, no. FF 3.6 has received security updates until a few weeks ago 
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_3.6#End_of_Life>), while this is 
not the case for versions 4 through 8 (because they have been 
end-of-lifed many many months ago).

FF 3.6 is now unmaintained; if you want to run the latest "enterprisy" 
version that FF 10.0 ESR is for you (see 
<http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/faq/>).

> I want to use a Browser which will have the same level of support
> today and in 5 years.  Since FF decided that they will support all
> of their current browsers in exactly the same fashion in 5 years from now
> (=not at all), I'm free to pick whichever version works best for me.

You are free to do what you want. I'm just pointing out that you are 
running software which may have known vulnerabilities. I would recommend 
not to.

> Since I am actively using extensions/add-ons that do now work in FF12,
> _my_ pick is pretty easy.  Running FF 3.6 with a manually beefed-up AdBlock
> plus NoScript plus CertPatrol is also likely much safer than any
> "currently supported" FF with default settings will ever be.

All of these seem to be available for FF12.

>>> make it break pages correctly, whereas FF 12 on Win7 seems to break
>>> pages correctly with the default scale "shrink to fit" (for A4 paper)
>>> and the default margins of 1/2 in. all around.
>>>
>>> The reason why MSIE 8 and Chome break pages incorrectly with
>>>
>>>     http://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2246.txt
>>>
>>> is a bug with respect to processing ASCII FormFeeds (12d/0x0c)
>>> characters when printing text/plain contents.
>>
>> Has anybody reported a bug?
>
> Those who believe that their Browser should be capable of rendering
> plain/text correctly to their printer should file a bug report.

Well, you said "bug", that's why I asked whether you have reported it.

> ...

Best regards, Julian


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list