[rfc-i] Pagination requirements

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Wed May 23 15:00:46 PDT 2012

On 5/23/2012 2:45 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> The canonical version doesn't have to be all things to all people,
> but a format that prints reasonably and displays on small screens
> reasonably using standard tools is better IMO than a format that
> prints great but displays poorly or displays great but prints poorly.
> But if the choice is between the latter two, then printing poorly it
> is.

The choice is between the output format and the canonical format.

There is NO utility to imposing silly requirements on the canonical 
format, including the ability to read an RFC on a smartphone.

>> Why is that good enough for printing HTML and not for viewing TXT in a browser?
> Actually _viewing_ current RFCs in a browser on a big(ish) screen is
> pretty good considering. But you really do need a screen that is
> relatively large. Even an ebook reading device can't handle the current
> format very well.

Agreed - how long do we expect the current limited resolutions to
persist, though? Why are we even discussing a transient issue regarding
the *canonical* format?

> Can you explain a bit more your concerns about printing? Obviously a
> browser doesn't print as well as good type setting tools. But do we need
> the latter level of performance for RFCs? I'm trying to understand what
> the must-have features are for printing.

I don't need to be able to read an RFC on my phone. I think anyone who 
does is batty, and should deal with whatever subset of the document 
their tiny little window displays, and move on.

I don't want TeX-level typesetting for paper printouts, but I'd like to 
not give up what I have now - some sense that there's control over page 
breaks when printing out.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list