[rfc-i] [IAB Trac] #266: Requirement for "Clear Printing"
paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Fri Feb 15 10:23:19 PST 2013
On Feb 15, 2013, at 10:10 AM, RJ Atkinson <rja.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 15 Feb 2013, at 13:00 , Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> On Feb 15, 2013, at 9:54 AM, RJ Atkinson <rja.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The selected values work today, and for past decades,
>>> for essentially all A4 printers and also for essentially
>>> all US-Letter printers, giving the same printed result.
>> If that's good enough for you to want to hobble our use
>> of ASCII art forever, that's fine;
> My proposal does not "hobble our use of ASCII art".
Yes, it does, by keeping the column limitation to 72. Others have proposed higher numbers; I proposed 90 after some experiments.
> I don't know why you are misreading my quite narrow
> proposal as being so much broader than it actually is.
Because you mixed two proposals: (a) using the historical number of columns and rows and (b) have a text/plain output that is paginated.
> My proposal simply says that at least one RFC format will
> have text/plain (*.txt) contents (e.g., not HTML and not PDF),
> have consistent pagination, consistent printed page numbers,
> and consistent overall printed result for both A4 and
> US-Letter printers.
That's fine. However, when I suggested that we could do that *and* change the number of columns, you responded with the bit quoted at the top of this message, indicating that we could not change the number of columns, even though we can change that number and still have what you want.
More information about the rfc-interest