[rfc-i] Requirement for "clear printing"
pkyzivat at alum.mit.edu
Wed Feb 20 11:44:19 PST 2013
On 2/20/13 2:14 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
> Both references work **MUCH** better than with section number alone,
> and since all documents are immutable once published, there is exactly
> zero ambiguity involved. And yes, this page-based anchor tags will
> intuitively work just fine with printouts, A4, US paper sizes and
> any kind of N-up printing that carries through the page numbers.
> The huge advantage of fixed size 10 cpi font for the vanilla TXT document
> is that one can reliably predict the readability for *ALL* documents
> that are printed N-up, because the font size is reliably known before
> If the authors get to choose arbitrary font sizes, printing will become
> a tree chopping exercise, because inconsistent readability of N-up
> printouts that will be highly dependent on the authors (ab)use of
> font sizes.
Are you suggesting a new requirement for support of N-up printing that
is "readable" for some N and some quality of eyesight???
I'm one of the old farts who, according to stereotypes, ought to be
arguing for such things. But I am not. N-up printing was once leading
edge technology for saving trees and for providing something I could
both carry and read on a plane. But we are beyond that. I would much
rather see a requirement for tools to assemble a "book" in some
bookreader format, of a selected set of RFCs. For the most part such
tools already exist, but may need to be revised as formats change.
More information about the rfc-interest