[rfc-i] Requirement for "clear printing"

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Wed Feb 20 00:26:22 PST 2013


Joel,

On 19/02/2013 17:27, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> In line...
> 
> On 2/19/2013 12:10 PM, Tony Hansen wrote:
>>
>> On 2/19/2013 11:55 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> a) "Clear printing" is too vague, and we should say something more
>>> like "Easily legible printing on A4 or US Letter size paper, whenever
>>> possible without splitting figures and tables."
>>
>> agreed
> 
> Also agreed.
>>
>>> b) There is a separate question of whether we also require identical
>>> pagination on those two paper sizes.
>>
>> The current format gives the same pagination on both paper sizes. If we
>> have a plain printable format with the characteristics in (a), it should
>> continue to have the same pagination on the two paper sizes.
> 
> I do not care if it happens that we end up with the same pagination. But
> I do not see why there should be a requirement.  We are talking about
> two specific formats, out of several.  Why is it important that they
> share this property?   What is the requirement we have?

I tried to avoid taking a position on this requirement when I formulated
it, but the argument for it is so that old-fashioned dinosaurs on opposite
sides of the Atlantic could discuss paper copies with each other without
confusion. We could avoid the whole discussion if the US would care
to switch to A4.

>>
>>> c) There is a separate question whether we also require fine-grain
>>> markers such as paragraph numbers.
>>
>> Paragraph numbers are intrinsic to the semantic content and shouldn't
>> require any specific markup.
> 
> I hope and think that intrinsic layout is sufficient, but if some
> formats have a easy way to add numbers there, that is fine.  But I don't
> think it is required.

If you're sure there's an umambiguous definition of "paragraph". I'm not
convinced of that.

   Brian


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list