Re: [art] New RFCs text formatting

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Thu, 05 December 2019 06:54 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7DB81200D5 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 22:54:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5SHJGZP4zllA for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 22:54:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 764CA120059 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 22:54:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1icl27-0009FK-6h; Thu, 05 Dec 2019 01:54:39 -0500
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2019 01:54:32 -0500
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: rfc-interest@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
cc: moore@network-heretics.com
Subject: Re: [art] New RFCs text formatting
Message-ID: <11BECA03AF4D93512E0A8C20@PSB>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/UYeCTHgIwjt5deDHi4EAmUuEgjo>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2019 06:54:43 -0000


--On Sunday, December 1, 2019 14:09 -0500 John Levine
<johnl@taugh.com> wrote:

> In article
> <1a1726cf-70a0-019d-1138-c5e22f258d4d@network-heretics.com>
> you write:
>> I thought the format was a compromise between US Letter
>> format, A4  format, and printers.
> 
> I thought it was 72 characters because that's how many you got
> on a punch card, leaving 8 for the sequence number.

I had really hoped to avoid getting into this, but Keith is
right.  There may well have been other considerations and, if
there were, any comments about which was the most important
would be close to pure speculation.  One would have to ask Jon
or Joyce to get a definitive answer and that would be very
difficult.  However, I was involved in conversations in which
Jon pointed out that, since A4 paper was narrower and longer
than letter size, the appropriate thing to do was to determine
print area width on the basis of A4 and length on the basis of
letter-size.  He also considered side margins of about a half
inch to be the minimum acceptable.   At the nominal ten
characters per inch, a 72 character line come out as 7.2 inches.
And half inch margins on both sides and one gets 8.2 inches.  A4
is 210 mm wide or 8.27 inches.  It would be incorrect to assume
that is a coincidence.

If one were making the same decisions with today's technology
and ideas about aesthetics, the answers might well be different.
But it is incorrect to assume that issues like international
differences in papers sizes were unknown or deliberately ignored.

best,
   john