[rfc-i] Pagination requirements

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Wed May 23 14:35:23 PDT 2012

On 5/23/2012 2:32 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2012-05-23 23:22, Joe Touch wrote:
>> On 5/23/2012 1:51 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>>> On 23 May 2012, at 22:25 , Joe Touch wrote:
>>> ...
>>> Well, obviously printing is still a requirement, even though IMO the
>>> display on screens takes precedence. Your assumption is that if the
>>> format is HTML it must be possible to print from a browser. However,
>>> this could also happen through a separate tool, or by having alternative
>>> print-ready versions published by the RFC Editor.
>> So 2 solutions to printing, assuming we go with HTML:
>> 1) use another tool
>> when I proposed that ^L was still useful, I suggested
>> a widely available included tool on an existing OS,
>> and was mocked for needing to resize the font
>> 2) use another layout
>> we just as easily generate "display on a ridiculous device"
>> formats for those who insist on wanting to read RFCs on
>> 4" smartphone displays too ;-)
>> ...
> or ...
> 3) just print the HTML, and declare that whatever Firefox makes out of
> it is good enough.

Why is that good enough for printing HTML and not for viewing TXT in a 

My concern is that over-optimizing for browsers is tossing the ability 
to print readable paper out the window - and it's a bit premature for that.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list