[rfc-i] [IAB Trac] #266: Requirement for "Clear Printing"
nico at cryptonector.com
Mon Feb 18 17:41:15 PST 2013
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 7:19 PM, RJ Atkinson <rja.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 18 Feb 2013, at 20:05 , Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>> Without commenting on some of the other aspects,
>> I do not see why "printing equally well on US letter
>> and A4 paper" includes ...
+1 to Joel's remark.
> Please propose a specific and workable definition for
> "printing equally well on US-Letter and A4 paper".
It's your term, no? Still, to me "prints equally well on US-Letter
and A4 paper" means that I can print on either and the result is
readable. It does not mean that there cannot be separate
per-page-size printable formats (multiple PDF files, multiple .txt
files). I'd be OK with a bevy of output formats:
- PDF (US-Letter)
- PDF (A4)
- unpaginated text (xml2rfc has an option for this, which I use for
reviewing diffs to my I-Ds)
- text paginated for US-Letter
- text paginated for A4
- text paginated equally for both of those paper sizes (assuming that
this is possible for a given RFC)
- unpaginated HTML, all in one file
- unpaginated HTML with sections in separate files
- paginated HTML (weird, sure, but it's actually pretty to my eyes) ...
I don't know that the RFC-Editor will be happy with *all* of those.
Maybe a subset.
I think we're making a big deal out of little things. In practice
most future RFCs will, I think, easily be rendered in the traditional
paginated text way, but also as PDF and HTML. It's possible that
there will be occasional future RFCs where the content is not amenable
to plain text (even allowing UTF-8) rendering that paginates the same
on Letter and A4 -- I'm not sure what contents could lead to that, but
let's assume it's possible: what then? I think we should have equal
pagination on US-Letter and A4 as a goal, not a requirement; if it
can't be met for some RFC, too bad, but the RFC should be published
More information about the rfc-interest