On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 12:00:27PM -0800, Dave CROCKER wrote:
requirement should only call for use of extremely well-established
data representations, where 'extremely well-established' means
highly stable and massively widespread for a significant number of
years.
Like, for instance, a page-layout format that depends on the physical
medium (apprently one current on a line printer some time in the
distant past) in order to establish things like word wrapping?
When we start to have a serious discussion about coping with the
IETF's own ridiculous formatting rules (which are not "plain ASCII",
before anyone starts with that self-evidently false line of argument),
then I will have sympathy for arguments that we should start making
rules about what we can accept. As long as we're so conservative in
what we send that our output is, in its official form, unreadable on
2/3 of the computers I regularly use, I think we should be extremely
liberal in what we accept.
Best,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs(_at_)anvilwalrusden(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf