[rfc-i] Pagination requirements

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Thu May 24 09:44:28 PDT 2012

On 5/24/2012 8:26 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2012-05-24 17:17, Joe Touch wrote:
>> On May 24, 2012, at 8:05 AM, Julian Reschke<julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
>>> BS. People who want to print out are inconvenienced *right now*.
>> There are PDFs right nw that print on most things fine.
> The key issue is the canonical format that people find when getting the
> "official" version of the RFC. *That* needs to work well.
> It's nice to have alternate versions in different places, but these will
> only help people who already know they exist.

Google returns links to the HTML, which includes pointers to the txt and 
pdf versions.

No one version satisfies the requirements provided any better than the 
existing txt.

>>>> 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.
>> There is HTML right now with links too.
> Paginated, not reflowing, links based on heuristics so sometimes broken,
> no way for the author to provide more specific links.
>> Again, is this all just to view the txt version on a phone?
> Again, no. You can stop asking now.

Hmm - then why do you keep giving it as an answer? What do you think we 
should interpret from the "need" to reflow text?


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list