[rfc-i] [IAB Trac] #266: Requirement for "Clear Printing"

Joel M. Halpern jmh at joelhalpern.com
Fri Feb 15 10:18:59 PST 2013


I guess I am missing something.
It seems to me that in terms of how people talk about items within an 
RFC, I think we would want to encourage use of section and paragraph 
discussion and discourage use of page discussion, since page clearly 
will not work for all the people in a discussion.

As such, I have trouble seeing why we would want a requirement to make 
page references work well.

Yours,
Joel

On 2/15/2013 11:10 AM, RJ Atkinson wrote:
>
> On 15  Feb 2013, at 10:50 , Dave Crocker wrote:
>> I (finally) think we have one:  screen size.
>>
>> Growing popularity of doing serious, on-going reading
>> using widely differing display devices has (finally)
>> made the classic, fixed, U.S. document page-size problematic.
>
> Devices having varying screen sizes are not new.  The
> vt220 on my desk back in the day could show 132 chars/line
> at a time when many devices were limited to 80 chars/line.
> At that same time, others were using early workstations
> with highly variable screen sizes (both pixels/inch and
> overall pixel geometry).
>
> For reading RFCs on modern devices with variable sized
> displays (e.g. hand-held something), folks are not likely
> to choose a text/plain format version of the RFC.
> Instead, they likely would pick an HTML version (or
> some other version) of the RFC.
>
> We agree that we ought not require fixed pagination
> for other formats (e.g., HTML).  That is a sufficient
> solution for the "varying display size" concern.
>
> My suggestion is quite narrow, that we keep the current
> fixed pagination only for the text/plain  (*.txt) format,
> which is used both for A4 printing and US-Letter printing.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ran
>
>
> PS:  Regarding PDF...
>    If the PDF format can use the same pagination as text/plain,
>    that would be great and very helpful.  Unfortunately, not all
>    devices support PDF.  Also, the same RFC can have a larger
>    file size in PDF versus in text/plain format.  PDF also requires
>    one to search using PDF-application-specific mechanisms,
>    whereas text/plain supports a wider range of search approaches.
>    So PDF is great, but is not a full substitute for text/plain.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list