[rfc-i] (bogus) arguments against reflowable text
hallam at gmail.com
Fri Sep 21 09:51:34 PDT 2012
+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.
> Dave Crocker
> Brandenburg InternetWorking
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the rfc-interest