[rfc-i] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-flanagan-plaintext-00.txt

Dearlove, Christopher (UK) chris.dearlove at baesystems.com
Tue Jun 24 04:33:25 PDT 2014

Who has decided the goals? Is it really just a very few people watching this?

Personally, paper is more important than HTML.

Christopher Dearlove
Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group
Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability
BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
Tel: +44 1245 242194 |  Fax: +44 1245 242124
chris.dearlove at baesystems.com | http://www.baesystems.com

BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre, Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687

-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke at gmx.de] 
Sent: 24 June 2014 12:23
To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK); Paul Kyzivat; rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-flanagan-plaintext-00.txt

----------------------! WARNING ! ---------------------- This message originates from outside our organisation, either from an external partner or from the internet.
Consider carefully whether you should click on any links, open any attachments or reply.
Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters for instructions on reporting suspicious email messages.

On 2014-06-24 13:04, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:
> This does appear to convert plain text from normative to close to useless. At least as the only text version. An unpaginated text version may have uses as a supplementary form rather than a replacement.
> Is there going to be a numbered page version with a table of contents with page numbers that I can pick up and print? (PDF?) If so, why not text like that as well?

It is possible to get proper printouts from HTML with page numbers (in the TOC and in the index), but not from a desktop browser right now (due to missing CSS paged media support). There will likely be a PDF version as well.

But keep in mind that the page numbers will depend on output formats, so there won't be any unambigious "page 5 of rfc xxxx" anymore. Yes, that's intentional.

> The current RFC Editor process does pagination as a special extra step at the end. It feels like rather than work out how to do that better, it's being thrown out for convenience of the process rather than the users.

It's thrown out because it's in conflict with other goals, namely proper support for other output devices than paper.

> ...

Best regards, Julian

This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list