[rfc-i] (bogus) arguments against reflowable text
Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Fri Sep 21 16:17:37 PDT 2012
On 21/09/2012 17:10, Julian Reschke wrote:
> From <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rfc-format-flanagan-00#section-2.1>:
>> 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.
It's not rocket science but it does imply some kind of metadata to allow
Actually the argument against reflowable text is somewhat like that for pagination.
* Reflowable text may impact ease of reference to specific line items
Thinking about this, I think we also need to mention fixed-width vs variable-width
font as an issue. Fixed-width allows simple forms of table and ASCII art.
Variable-width makes tables a bit more complex and disallows ASCII art.
More information about the rfc-interest