[rfc-i] (bogus) arguments against reflowable text

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Fri Sep 21 16:17:37 PDT 2012

On 21/09/2012 17:10, Julian Reschke wrote:
> From <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rfc-format-flanagan-00#section-2.1>:
>>    Arguments against allowing for reflowable text:
>>       *  Reflowable text may impact the usability of graphics and tables
>>          within a document.
> That's FUD; of course the format needs to distinguish text from
> graphics, tables, and preformatted text (such as code), so that it
> reflows properly. No rocket science at all.

It's not rocket science but it does imply some kind of metadata to allow
those distinctions.

Actually the argument against reflowable text is somewhat like that for pagination.

       *  Reflowable text may impact ease of reference to specific line items

Thinking about this, I think we also need to mention fixed-width vs variable-width
font as an issue. Fixed-width allows simple forms of table and ASCII art.
Variable-width makes tables a bit more complex and disallows ASCII art.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list