[rfc-i] not just 'lineprinter' (was Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-flanagan-plaintext-00.txt)

Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) jhildebr at cisco.com
Mon Jun 30 13:31:10 PDT 2014


On 6/30/14, 2:09 PM, "Dave Crocker" <dhc at dcrocker.net> wrote:

>I thought the question was /whether/ to generate the ^L, and not whether
>it is feasible.

OK, that's a perfectly fine question.  What software do most people have
available to them that can process the ^L?  My assertion, based on my last
message, is "basically none".  As such, I'd like to have a use case that
is compelling for having a format containing ^L's.

>I read Brian's suggestion as an assertion of efficacy to generate the
>^L, for txt format.

I think we're also having a conversation about which format people will be
able to print adequately aesthetically pleasing paper from.  I suggested a
way to create PDFs that have that property that hasn't been dismissed as a
candidate.  I do not believe we will get adequately aesthetically pleasing
paper from a new .txt format, but I am open to suggestions that don't
create a lot of overhead for authors or the RPC.

>I am expressing support for doing it, since I believe his description of
>the benefit that accrues made sense.  I'm not in the least worried about
>whether it's possible or even easy.

I made a couple of concrete suggestions for how it is possible that you
still haven't replied to.  Please bash that specific proposal and suggest
either ways in which it is not suitable, or new requirements that we
haven't discussed.  References:

http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/2014-June/007308.html
http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/2014-June/007396.html



-- 
Joe Hildebrand





More information about the rfc-interest mailing list