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

Marc Blanchet marc.blanchet at viagenie.ca
Fri Feb 15 10:31:19 PST 2013


Le 2013-02-15 à 13:18, Joel M. Halpern a écrit :

> 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.

+1.

Marc.


> 
> 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
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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