[rfc-i] [IAB Trac] #266: Requirement for "Clear Printing"
nico at cryptonector.com
Tue Feb 19 00:42:27 PST 2013
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:16 AM, Brian E Carpenter
<brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:
> OK, what I mean (and I suspect Ran too) is:
> "capability for fine-grained references when working with a printable format."
> That's old-fashioned, I know. However, you are advocating fine-grained
> references via anchors, which is:
> "capability for fine-grained references when working with a hypertext format."
> The question before the house is whether we want both of these, or only one.
I don't think that's the only question, or even the right one. I use
section, paragraph, sentence numbering when I comment on I-Ds and
RFCs, and this works whether I read the thing on paper or whether I
read it on a screen -- just what is wrong or insufficient about this
The real questions are: do we want to insist on stable page numbering
in *any* output formats? or even in *all* output formats?
The answer to the latter is quite clearly "no", but I think the answer
to the first should be "no" as well. We do have a reasonable, and
stable-in-all-formats alternative to stable page numbering, as I've
explained above and earlier in this thread.
In the meantime the most urgent question (as far as proceeding with
this I-D goes) is: "what does 'clear printing' mean?" It seems to
mean "stable page numbering". If so then the I-D should be updated to
say so clearly.
More information about the rfc-interest