[rfc-i] Proposed way forwards on backward compatibility with v2
nico at cryptonector.com
Tue Feb 18 07:47:03 PST 2014
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Ted Lemon <mellon at fugue.com> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 2014, at 9:16 AM, Riccardo Bernardini <framefritti at gmail.com> wrote:
>> To me "Occasional hand-hacking" meant "apply corrections by hand in
>> those cases when the formatting tools do not a good work."
> I don't want to belabor the point, but where does it end? Widow and orphan support? Font sizes?
Wherever the RFC-Editor cares it to end. (Though I'd be opposed to
specifying font sizes in any way other than relative. Readers must be
able to scale font size up and down!)
If the RFC-Editor says they have no use for <vspace> then we're on
more solid ground if we propose removing it, though even then I'd
rather not remove functionality (as opposed to merely making a
backwards incompatible schema change) without studying the matter
(current usage, needs) a bit more.
More information about the rfc-interest