[rfc-i] Pagination requirements

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Thu May 24 11:06:33 PDT 2012

On 5/24/2012 10:51 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2012-05-24 19:43, Joe Touch wrote:
>> ...
>>> Believe it or not, even if we you take mobile devices out of the picture
>>> there are still different screen sizes. "Refloweable" is also essential
>>> when you want to be able non-monospaced fonts.
>> Only if you care about full text justification. Otherwise,
>> variable-width fonts display .txt just fine (with the exception of ASCII
>> diagrams, of course - but reflow destroys those too).
>> ...
> Oh my.
> First of all, a format that supports reflowing of course needs to
> understand what is monospaced.HTML does this. We have discussed this
> here multiple times. It's really annoying that you keep bringing it up
> as it was a hard problem nobody has solved.

My point was that reflow has nothing to do with font spacing. You 
claimed it did.

> That being said, text/plain indeed can be displayed in a variable-width
> font, but that will not work well, because:
> - we have indentations that rely on character width (such as certain
> list types), and

That just changes the amount of indent, but the relative indent remains 
the same.

> - one point of using a variable-width font is to increase the amount of
> text that fits into a line, and having a hard line break of course makes
> that impossible.

Increasing the amount of text on a line using proportional vs. fixed is 
a *really* silly thing to be optimizing.

Yes, hard breaks affect reflow, but reflow does not imply or require 
proportional spacing.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list