[rfc-i] Pagination requirements
touch at isi.edu
Wed May 30 10:52:58 PDT 2012
On 5/30/2012 4:07 AM, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
> On 2012/05/26 0:21, Joe Touch wrote:
>> On May 25, 2012, at 12:02 AM, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
>>> On 2012/05/25 3:24, Joe Touch wrote:
>>>> I'm not sure then what the problem is with reading these docs on an
>>>> - you gave artwork as the reason.
>>> Eyesight is another. Some people, in particular younger ones, seem to
>>> have eagle's eyes, while others (me more and more included) have limits.
>> Speaking as one who shares this frailty, get glasses.
> Sorry, I don't need glasses (yet?). I can read 10pt type fine. I just
> can't read 6pt type. Using a reflowing format (vs. a fixed format)
> significantly increases the range of devices where I can reasonably read
> IDs and RFCs. My strong guess is that it has similar benefits for others.
>> Or generate "large type" formats - on a large display.
> Sorry, but I can't read in bed with a large display (and yes, I
> *occasionally* want to read an ID or RFC in bed). I also can't or don't
> want to take a large display on a train,...
>> I don't think we should muck with formats to avoid an optician.
> You seem to be insisting on a lot of details just so that you can write
> in a certain way. Why can't you accept that others might want to read in
> more ways than the current format easily allows? That feels rather
> myopic to me :-).
I do accept that, but I don't consider extreme cases as appropriate in
driving the requirements.
More information about the rfc-interest