[rfc-i] [IAB Trac] #266: Requirement for "Clear Printing"

Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) rse at rfc-editor.org
Wed Feb 20 11:03:38 PST 2013


On 2/19/13 8:58 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Feb 19, 2013, at 11:47 AM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman at vpnc.org> wrote:
>> And by "ASCII terminal", this is almost always a window that can be made at least 90 characters wide, yes? I'm sure a very small number of people will insist that they can read RFCs on an 80x24 console, but I suspect that number is much smaller than those who use terminal programs that have variable-width windows.
> 
> We appear to be straying into the ASCII art discussion.   I think it's fine if the printed format is not canonical, and doesn't contain all the artwork.   I think adding ten characters to the right isn't going to solve the diagramming problem.
> 
> ___

I think we have strayed in to all sorts of other discussions.  They are
related, granted, but we do enjoy our rat holes.  In catching up between
travel and meetings, I've captured the questions raised to include:

* Does clear printing mean pagination?
* Does clear printing mean identical output on different formats?
* Does clear printing mean page layout of graphics and tables?

The term "clear printing" was used in the earliest precursors of this
draft and was mentioned in a summary of issues on this list back in
July.  It originally came up purely in terms of pagination (at least as
far as my notes go).  I suggest that at the heart of the issue of clear
printing, what we are looking for is a certainty that whatever the
format, an RFC prints out in a form that results in a readable document.
 When LF/CR was more of an issue, printing was also more of an issue.

I think the discussion as documented in the current draft can be brought
closer to the intended meaning by just removing the word "clear" which,
to be clear, was only in the capture of the discussion and not in a
requirement itself.

After some confusion with typing too fast in the data tracker, I have
proposed the following as an actual requirement in section 3.2:

* At least one Publication format must support readable print to paper.

I do not want to limit the requirement to any particular size of paper.
 If the group strongly suggests that at least limiting this to a
standard size of paper is appropriate, I will go there, but I do not
think it is necessary.

-Heather



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list