[rfc-i] Pagination requirements

Tim Bray tbray at textuality.com
Tue May 22 21:15:06 PDT 2012

To his credit, Martin has been admirably clear. The existing format
meets his needs well and the problems that are troubling the rest of
us are for one reason or another not disturbing him; rather than
changing things, we should complain to those at fault, the vendors of
the technologies we use that do not perform well with the line-printer

Noted.  Yes, let’s move on.


On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 8:12 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at stpeter.im> wrote:
> <snip/>
> Folks, this thread has gone on for so long that I forget its original
> purpose. Can we give it a break for a while? If someone has novel input
> to provide or, even better, true requirements for the RFC format going
> forward, perhaps they could write that in succinct text?
> Peter
> --
> Peter Saint-Andre
> https://stpeter.im/
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list