[rfc-i] [IAB Trac] #266: Requirement for "Clear Printing"
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).
More information about the rfc-interest