[rfc-i] Requirement for "clear printing"

Paul Kyzivat pkyzivat at alum.mit.edu
Wed Feb 20 12:43:22 PST 2013

On 2/20/13 3:12 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
> Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>> Martin Rex wrote:
>>> The huge advantage of fixed size 10 cpi font for the vanilla TXT document
>>> is that one can reliably predict the readability for *ALL* documents
>>> that are printed N-up, because the font size is reliably known before
>>> printing.
>>> If the authors get to choose arbitrary font sizes, printing will become
>>> a tree chopping exercise, because inconsistent readability of N-up
>>> printouts that will be highly dependent on the authors (ab)use of
>>> font sizes.
>> Are you suggesting a new requirement for support of N-up printing that
>> is "readable" for some N and some quality of eyesight???
> There is another quite useful application that uses 2-up on the
> IETF tools website: rfcdiff  (in this case 2-up for the screen,
> but the idea is the same)

I agree that a diff tool is incredibly important.
The lack of a good and easy to read one is one of my objections to the 
use of MSWord.

But it is a *different* requirement. A diff tool can be made to do 
reasonable things with long lines.


> rfcdiff facilitates reviewing changes between two I-D versions:
>     http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-saintandre-urn-example-02
> and even between two RFCs when they are sufficiently related:
>     http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=rfc4346.txt&url1=rfc2246.txt
> (although the current rfc2diff heuristics seem to get confused
>   by insertion of empty lines here in a few places).
> -Martin

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list