[rfc-i] Bogus argument against reflowable text

Paul Hoffman paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Wed Jan 16 16:01:57 PST 2013


On Jan 16, 2013, at 2:15 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:

> I (still) don't get:
> 
>> Arguments against allowing for reflowable text:
>> 
>> *  Reflowable text may impact the usability of graphics and tables
>> within a document.
> 
> Of course a format that allows reflowable text will need handle graphics and tables so that they display properly. Has anybody proposed a format that fails to do this?
> 
> So it appears this is just an argument against doing reflowable text *wrong*; nothing that needs to be noted here.

+1. This feels like "we had to say something negative, and this was the best we could think of". It really doesn't hold up.

--Paul Hoffman


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list