[rfc-i] Requirement for "clear printing"

Joel M. Halpern jmh at joelhalpern.com
Tue Feb 19 09:27:12 PST 2013

In line...

On 2/19/2013 12:10 PM, Tony Hansen wrote:
> On 2/19/2013 11:55 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> a) "Clear printing" is too vague, and we should say something more
>> like "Easily legible printing on A4 or US Letter size paper, whenever
>> possible without splitting figures and tables."
> agreed

Also agreed.
>> b) There is a separate question of whether we also require identical
>> pagination on those two paper sizes.
> The current format gives the same pagination on both paper sizes. If we
> have a plain printable format with the characteristics in (a), it should
> continue to have the same pagination on the two paper sizes.

I do not care if it happens that we end up with the same pagination. 
But I do not see why there should be a requirement.  We are talking 
about two specific formats, out of several.  Why is it important that 
they share this property?   What is the requirement we have?

>> c) There is a separate question whether we also require fine-grain
>> markers such as paragraph numbers.
> Paragraph numbers are intrinsic to the semantic content and shouldn't
> require any specific markup.

I hope and think that intrinsic layout is sufficient, but if some 
formats have a easy way to add numbers there, that is fine.  But I don't 
think it is required.

>      Tony

> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list