[rfc-i] Pagination requirements

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Thu May 24 10:12:42 PDT 2012

On 5/24/2012 10:03 AM, Joe Hildebrand wrote:
> On 5/24/12 10:56 AM, "Joe Touch"<touch at isi.edu>  wrote:
>> On 5/24/2012 8:30 AM, Joe Hildebrand wrote:
>>> On 5/24/12 9:21 AM, "Joe Touch"<touch at isi.edu>   wrote:
>>>> I gave them but you dismissed them as aesthetic.
>>> Could you please just reiterate them very quickly in a few words?  The ones
>>> I remember were:
>>> - page numbers that were consistent across browsers (dealt with by not
>>> needing page number references)
>>> - page numbers in the table of contents (no answer yet in current browsers)
>>> - widows and orphans (no answer yet in current browsers, but more aesthetic,
>>> unless you can articulate a functional issue)
>>> - examples splitting page boundaries (answered with page-break-inside:
>>> avoid)
>>> What am I missing?
>> Ability to indicate blocks that are not page-split (e.g., for figures,
>> or if desired for lists or code examples).
> I thought that was my fourth point above.  Am I missing a subtlety?

Perhaps not - the questions for that are:

	- is that honored by current browsers?
	- how does the directive get into the HTML?

>> Page numbers *or* section numbers are needed as header or footers on
>> printed material. Otherwise the printed material is just as "useless"
>> (or inconvenient) as the current .txt is on a smartphone.
> Let's put a pin in that for the moment until I've got something concrete to
> show you.  I don't think it's easy enough to visualize in the abstract.



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list