[rfc-i] [IAB Trac] #266: Requirement for "Clear Printing"
Joel M. Halpern
jmh at joelhalpern.com
Sat Feb 16 14:49:03 PST 2013
Conversely, why should the canonical format be required to support page
The underlying requirement we are discussing is for printability. It
does seem to me that we need a clear requirement tat things be
printable. That does not mean it has to have page numbers. It does
seem to me to mean that things should be printable on both US Letter and
A4 paper. (I doubt it means printable on any form factor paper someone
happens to have handy.)
Is it sufficient that there be a printable form? Should we require that
all forms be printable? What other constraints go with "clear"?
On 2/16/2013 3:14 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 15/02/2013 18:31, Marc Blanchet wrote:
>> 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.
> Maybe you missed the point that this would be about the canonical format.
> Obviously, page numbers and line numbers are irrelevant for a reflowable
> format, but where is it written that the reflowable format is the
> canonical format?
More information about the rfc-interest