[rfc-i] Pagination requirements

Martin Rex mrex at sap.com
Tue May 22 16:59:18 PDT 2012

Joe Hildebrand wrote:
> "Martin Rex" <mrex at sap.com> wrote:
> >
> > I have not found two browser which produce the exact same printout for
> > a page, and I regularly run into problems where letters or words get
> > truncated in the printout or graphics misplaced.  The issue is much
> > worse on printouts than it is onscreen.
> Who cares if they produce the same output in any way?  If it's legible, and
> you have reference marks that I wrote about in my previous mail, printing
> repeatability is a anti-requirement, particularly in the face of low-sight
> individuals that would prefer to print out at a much larger font size.

I do _not_ have a problem with others creating special printouts that
fit their needs.  But it would be stupid to create a brittle format
of a standard for which no two persons can create 100% matching
printouts _by_default_.

> > For a 100+ page document, I may not want to print everything at once
> > all the time, so an option to print 20 pages today and print 20 more
> > pages in 3 weeks AND having the printouts FIT TOGETHER as if printed
> > in a single go, is a necessity.
> No it's not a necessity.  You can't do that with the current format on most
> systems today.
> If your odd workflow is that important to you, you could always print to
> PDF, and keep that around for stability.
> >
> > This does work perfectly with the existing RFC format.
> No it doesn't.  Printing the current format is an absolute mess, unless you
> have a vintage line printer.

Proably untrue. There is a PDF version for existing RFCs available at


for those impaired environments that can not produce reasonable printouts
from ASCII text. 

So if your work environment can not cope with the fairly trivial task of
printing vintage LP, and you NEITHER can print the PDF version of it from
tools.ietf.org, then you should REALLY replace your work enviornment,
because it is broken beyond fixing.

> > And btw. I'm perfectly fine with the
> > nostalgic 80-columns fixed pitch format.
> That's clear from your vociferous defense of the status quo.  Nostalgia has
> a place and a time, but standards bodies aren't always that place.

Most of the standards that are truely relevant today are 10+ years old.

I have a printed copy of ISO/IEC 9899:1990, and use it regularly.

The drawback with ISO standards is, that few of them are freely available
online and with even fewer of them its possible to provide an URL to
specific sections or pages that others can use.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list