[rfc-i] Update on the plain text thread(s)

Dearlove, Christopher (UK) chris.dearlove at baesystems.com
Fri Jun 27 03:36:57 PDT 2014


Fourth, regarding pagination.  The discussions on pagination, pros and cons, have been hashed out at great length, over several years.  I have not seen any new information in this most recent debate on the merits--or lack thereof--of pagination.  Note that there is nothing prohibiting the community from creating paginated plain text if individuals find that particularly useful, and the design team has talked about the possibility of making such a tool available on the tools page.  The current tools create paginated text from unpaginated, not the other way around.  Also, there will be a PDF format, and that cannot help but be paginated.  Yes, having some things paginated and others not may be problematic for people who cannot be certain what other format a reader may be reviewing; that’s one of the reasons the RFC Editor has recommended for years to point to section numbers instead of page numbers.

I'd be happier if you explicitly discussed the issue of being able to print with things like artwork not split across pages. You can't do that going from unpaginated plaintext, the information is lost. (The current process has to involve manual input.) The XML could (it currently isn't good enough, I've yet to read the next version draft) include this, and therefore the PDF could respect that. But I've yet to see anyone on the inside loop accept that as desirable, let alone a requirement.
********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list