On Jul 3, 2009, at 08:07, Doug Ewell wrote:
As always when this discussion occurs, there are at least three
different issues swirling around:
1. ASCII-only vs. UTF-8
2. Plain text vs. higher-level formatting, for text flow and
3. Whether it is a good idea to include high-quality pictures in RFCs
There are not the same issue, and it would help combatants on both
sides not to mix them up.
I admire the attempt to separate these issues into orthogonal
concerns, but I don't think it can succeed.
The common aspect of all these issues is the question of whether our
archival format should A) continue to be limited to a string of ASCII
characters formatted for printing with a fixed-width font, or B) if it
should be expanded to include a document archival format that can
preserve font, style and figures.
There is a related but separable topic of discussion once option B) is
open for debate: what precisely should be the set of primary natural
languages used in IETF documents? Should it continue to be English
only? I'd very much prefer to see *that* discussion vigorously
deferred while our archival format continues to be the largest
practical obstacle to multilingualism. I believe there are no
reasonable candidates for archival formats that can preserve font,
style and figures without also providing for localization.
I don't know where the argument "don't help authors prepare I-Ds
using the tools of their choice, unless they are open-source" fits
into this picture.
Compared to the previous two issues, this one is just not so much
james woodyatt <jhw(_at_)apple(_dot_)com>
member of technical staff, communications engineering
Ietf mailing list