[rfc-i] tiny tablet text was Fwd: draft-flanagan-plaintext-00.txt

George, Wes wesley.george at twcable.com
Fri Jun 27 09:00:33 PDT 2014


On 6/27/14, 11:16 AM, "Dave Crocker" <dhc at dcrocker.net> wrote:


>So somebody, somewhere, used a /converted/ version of an RFC and had
>some sort of problem and folk here think that is a reasonable
>justification for dismissing ascii art on ereaders

https://tools.ietf.org/ebook/ is the somewhere, I am the somebody (but my
experience is not unique, as anyone with similar hardware can replicate
it), and I have described in detail what "some sort of problem" was.
Being dismissive of the quality of the data that you asked for when it
doesn't support your view really helps to further the productive
conversation. We're checking all the boxes on logical fallacy bingo
today...

>> I can say for certain
>> that the monospace font, even at smallest size, is capable of <70
>> columns in portrait mode, and less than the 55-ish rows we paginate
>> at today.
>
>That assertion is factually incorrect, on both counts.
WG] Which is in turn an incorrect assertion. How very meta.
>
>I am presently looking at RFC 5598, on my 7" android tablet, showing
>exactly one page, zoomed so that it all just fits on the screen.
WG] Am I really being this unclear? Your tablet is a different class of
device, and does not refute the experience on my monochrome, e-ink, *not a
tablet* Kindle e-reader. On the class of device I was providing detailed
info about, that information is factually correct.

>What this mostly highlights is the need to properly characterize target
>device categories for specific output formats.

WG] I believe I've tried to do that. There is a class of device that
cannot display enough character width to properly display ASCII art that
adheres to the current text formatting and pagination rules. I explained
the limitations. I think we should be able to support this device due to
its relative ubiquity and utility as a device for which to do a lot of
reading in a portable form, and to me that means we shouldn't require
ASCII art, lest we have to dramatically *reduce* the maximum allowable
width to have it display properly on this type of device.

Wes George


This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list