[rfc-i] [IAB Trac] #266: Requirement for "Clear Printing"

RJ Atkinson rja.lists at gmail.com
Fri Feb 15 08:10:09 PST 2013

On 15  Feb 2013, at 10:50 , Dave Crocker wrote:
> I (finally) think we have one:  screen size.
> Growing popularity of doing serious, on-going reading
> using widely differing display devices has (finally)
> made the classic, fixed, U.S. document page-size problematic.

Devices having varying screen sizes are not new.  The 
vt220 on my desk back in the day could show 132 chars/line 
at a time when many devices were limited to 80 chars/line.  
At that same time, others were using early workstations
with highly variable screen sizes (both pixels/inch and
overall pixel geometry).

For reading RFCs on modern devices with variable sized
displays (e.g. hand-held something), folks are not likely 
to choose a text/plain format version of the RFC.
Instead, they likely would pick an HTML version (or
some other version) of the RFC.

We agree that we ought not require fixed pagination
for other formats (e.g., HTML).  That is a sufficient 
solution for the "varying display size" concern.

My suggestion is quite narrow, that we keep the current
fixed pagination only for the text/plain  (*.txt) format, 
which is used both for A4 printing and US-Letter printing.



PS:  Regarding PDF...
  If the PDF format can use the same pagination as text/plain, 
  that would be great and very helpful.  Unfortunately, not all
  devices support PDF.  Also, the same RFC can have a larger 
  file size in PDF versus in text/plain format.  PDF also requires
  one to search using PDF-application-specific mechanisms, 
  whereas text/plain supports a wider range of search approaches.
  So PDF is great, but is not a full substitute for text/plain.

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list