Well, I will just point out that the whole discussion was kicked off
by a gratuitous defense of the existing format.
As for the rejection of Paul's proposal, it is entirely logical to
reject a change that fails to go far enough. And your ability to block
change in the past is hardly a justification for blocking any changes
in the future. If you decide to put it in those terms then the format
discussion becomes a debate on the question of whether the IETF is
capable of any sort of reform, any sort of growth. If the answer is
that it is not then it is a rather sad indictment of the institution.
As for 'tendentious', there is nothing particularly 'plain' about
being required to have an exact number of lines per page, a number of
lines chosen for compatibility with 1960s era dot matrix printers.
Teletype format seemed to be considerably less confrontational than
the term I have been using in conversation for many years now.
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Brian E Carpenter
On 2010-03-16 05:42, Doug Ewell wrote:
Note that I am not arguing in favor of plain text as the IETF standard.
I just want to keep this part of the discussion real. There is no
requirement anywhere that plain-text files may contain only ASCII
That requirement is explicit for RFCs.
This was originally in RFC 2223 and its predecessors back to RFC825.
Now it's in
Since we failed to get consensus even on the minor step proposed
I really don't see this conversation converging on a radical
Also, PHB's list of options is tendentious (by referring
contemptuously to "teleprinter" format) and ambiguous
(since there is no such thing as "the" HTML format for RFCs).
As an archival format, I am still very happy with ASCII.
Guaranteed layout, trivially searchable. The tools team
HTML markup is nice, but redundant as far as archiving goes.
Brian (who will once again regret having risen to the bait)
Ietf mailing list
New Website: http://hallambaker.com/
View Quantum of Stupid podcasts, Tuesday and Thursday each week,
Ietf mailing list