[rfc-i] vspace in v3
framefritti at gmail.com
Tue Feb 18 01:09:50 PST 2014
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 10:35 PM, Nico Williams <nico at cryptonector.com> wrote:
> On Monday, February 17, 2014, Dave Crocker <dhc at dcrocker.net> wrote:
>> On 2/17/2014 12:59 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>>> For v3, "page break" makes no sense because the canonical format has no
>>> pages. For "line break", I suspect <artwork> and <t> will be fine.
>> There is nothing wrong with having a canonical format also permit carriage
>> of constructs that work (and are useful) for some derived formats but not
>> others. It's not as clean as anyone would like, but it is often practical.
My (20-year) experience with LaTeX is that the line-break command (\\)
is almost never used and when it is, it is used to "force the hand" to
the LaTeX line-breaking algorithm. In other cases the "new paragraph"
command (equivalent to <t>) or the "verbatim" environment (equivalent
to <artwork>) are more than sufficient.
So, if we can add a line-break command, fine, but if we cannot, it is
no reason to tear your clothes and spread ashes on your head (OK, I
exaggerated a bit :-)
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest