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

RJ Atkinson rja.lists at gmail.com
Fri Feb 15 12:53:58 PST 2013


On 15  Feb 2013, at 14:33 , Paul Hoffman wrote:
> So, you are OK with the column limit for *input* being higher,
> and RFCs with wider ASCII art will just look awful in the current
> fixed-size layout but you'll live with that? If so, I apologize for misunderstanding what you wanted.

I'm not 100% sure that I understand exactly what you mean 
about "input" above.

IF I understand you correctly, that is OK with me, and
(again) I think RFC-1305 is a good comparison point.

As I noted earlier today, if one wants to read and fully
understand the equations behind NTP, one really needs to
read the PDF version of RFC-1305 with additional non-ASCII
characters used, but there is a text/plain version that is 
readily available and will print equally on A4 or US-Letter 
paper.  For most of an NTP implementation, the text/plain 
version of RFC-1305 is entirely adequate.

I don't have objection to fancier versions of an RFC existing,
but it seems important to continue to offer a simple format 
that works with any printer, does not require a GUI or
special tool to print or read (e.g., lpr to a dumb line
printer works), and has equal print results (except maybe 
whitespace in the margins) on A4 and US-Letter.

Equality of printing between A4 and US-Letter is important
to me.   Those paper sizes have different geometries, which 
the current text/plain rules very neatly finesse -- such that 
the print on the page is the same (but the whitespace margins 
differ) when comparing A4 with US-Letter.  Today, one
can type 'lpr rfcXXX.txt' on a UNIX system, or use similar
very basic/simple print request commands on some other OS, 
and get a very dumb printer to produce equal output (regardless 
of A4 or US-Letter paper size).

Yours,

Ran




More information about the rfc-interest mailing list