As most of you are painfully aware by now, I've been playing a lot with
richtext, and I've become convinced that we got one thing wrong.
Nathaniel,
This noodling with the Richtext specification really concerns me. It
really is too late for technical changes. The working group has
already submitted the document to the IESG for Proposed Standard
Status. Unless the IESG asks for modifications, any changes the
working group intends to make will cause the working group to have to
take back the document and send a new recommendation when it is stable
again.
If richtext is not ready for Proposed standard, and is is going to be
altered and updated, I strongly suggest it be separated "NOW!" from
MIME, which we intend to be stable.
Greg V, the chairman
Technically, I also vote for leaving Richtext alone. I do not find
the <nl> markers to be excessivly annoying given the rest of the
richtext formating. Both new proposed solutions open up a reliability
problem given systems which strip or otherwise mangle CRLF's. <nl> is
not likely to be stripped, or translated out of existance.
Greg V, the WG participant