[rfc-i] (bogus) arguments against reflowable text

[Phillip Hallam-Baker]

+1 and I will point out that this gets raised by people who insist on ASCII
art for figures in the first place so they create a problem and then call
it a show stopper.

On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Dave Crocker <dhc at dcrocker.net> wrote:

>
>     Arguments against allowing for reflowable text:
>>>
>>>       *  Reflowable text may impact the usability of graphics and tables
>>>          within a document.
>>>
>>
>> That's FUD; of course the format needs to distinguish text from
>> graphics, tables, and preformatted text (such as code), so that it
>> reflows properly. No rocket science at all.
>>
>
>
> I'd be a bit gentler about this issue.  I'd class it as an essential
> concern, and one that has some subtleties to handle well across platforms
> and publishing styles.
>
> But no, not even close to a show-stopper.
>
> d/
>
> --
>  Dave Crocker
>  Brandenburg InternetWorking
>  bbiw.net
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/**mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest<https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>
>



-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20120921/2379f1bd/attachment.htm>