[rfc-i] Requirement for "clear printing"
tbray at textuality.com
Tue Feb 19 07:19:56 PST 2013
Yeah, but there's no real utility in it, because once there's a decent HTML
version available, only Martin Rex will still be using the legacy ASCII, so
there'll be nobody for him to talk about page numbers with
On Feb 19, 2013 6:28 AM, "Ted Lemon" <mellon at fugue.com> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 2013, at 11:15 PM, Nico Williams <nico at cryptonector.com> wrote:
> > Also, we have a clear difference of opinion regarding stable page
> > numbering. Some insist on it for at least some output formats, and
> > some do not want stable page numbering to be a requirement if that
> > conflicts with other requirements.
> If there is stable page numbering for the ASCII text output format, this
> enables people to say "if you look at the ASCII text version on page 4,
> halfway down, you'll see blah." This is probably worth preserving, since
> it's clear that some people use it this way (e.g., Martin Rex' comment
> But let's not get carried away and make that canonical. It's just a
> workflow some people prefer, and more power to them. We should allow them
> to continue using that workflow, but not center the whole RFC publication
> process on that workflow.
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the rfc-interest