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

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Fri Feb 15 08:45:15 PST 2013

On 15/02/2013 15:36, Marc Blanchet wrote:
> Le 2013-02-15 à 10:00, RJ Atkinson a écrit :

> I disagree. I agree that we need a way for many people to refer to the same place in a document. But pagination is not the only way to do that, and introduces more problems. Some other ways are:
> a) refer to sections and paragraphs
> b) like other SDOs do, add line numbers to each line. 
> I'm just fine with a). b) is also useful and interesting.

b) is irrelevant with reflowable text, and (IMHO) ugly as well.

I would suggest that we should seriously consider requiring
the canonical representation to include pagination. That does
not imply retaining the 72/58 rule at all; it just implies
including page numbers and page boundaries. Incidentally,
it would allow a useful table of contents, but also imply
that the table of contents will be different in a reflowable


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list