[rfc-i] RFC Format - final requirements and next steps

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Tue May 15 00:45:19 PDT 2012

On 2012-05-15 08:27, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2012-05-15 08:13, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> ...
>>> Page length is a similar issue but not nearly as problematic, because
>>> jumping over some headers/footers is annoying, but doesn't get in the
>>> way of readability
>> Indeed. And since we allow internal page references, getting rid of
>> page numbers is not an option.
>> It seems to me that due to this and the previous point (rewrapping
>> text but not figures and tables), it's inevitable that *in any case*
>> there needs to be a specially post-processed version for mobiles.
>> ...
> I strongly disagree.
> Pre-paginated output should be the exception. In consequence, fixed page
> number references are something we need to get rid of. We have section
> numbers for a reason.

Actually, if we follow an HTML direction, you don't even need that
for internal references. But I don't think it will be easy to get
rid of pagination. I think it was invented for a reason, and we
will have to deal with in the legacy RFCs anyway.

I find pagination useful when I need to study a document in close
detail, for which purpose a hard copy in "booklet" format is
generally better than reading it on a screen. In contrast,
on-screen, pagination is just a nuisance.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list