[rfc-i] Pagination requirements

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Thu May 24 08:05:14 PDT 2012

On 2012-05-24 16:54, Joe Touch wrote:
> ...
>> You haven't answered my question about what *functional* features you're
>> missing from printed HTML.  I understand that the current state-of-the art
>> doesn't have adequate controls over widows and orphans, but that's an
>> aesthetic issue that doesn't impair your undersatnding of the doc.
> Nor does the way the current HTML of non xml2rfc docs displays on phones, but that appears to be driving the desire for change.
> ...

The main reason is readability and usability in general, no matter what 
the device is.

>> Based on some tests I performed today, support for page-break-before and
>> page-break-after is a little hit-and-miss, but page-break-inside works well,
>> and that's the one I care about most so that examples don't break pages when
>> possible.
>> The folks that don't like the lineprinter format have specific functional
>> requirements that the status quo does not offer.
> Sure - but you're moving the problem and inconvenience to those who want printouts.
 > ...

BS. People who want to print out are inconvenienced *right now*.

> I don't agree with optimizing for phones and tiny readers vs paper and full size readers and laptop screens.

Full size readers benefit from a richer format as much as small devices.

Best regards, Julian

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list