On Nov 21, 2005, at 7:05 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
As others have pointed out on this thread, the ASCII art in IETF
specs is (or should be) optional to implementers. The corollary is:
why bother to go to a format that uses something other than ASCII
art, if it is an optional component? Other than prettiness, what is
the advantage for our intended audience of protocol developers?
The advantage is that you can correctly represent words which come
from languages other than English.
In terms of accessibility, I advance the hypothesis that validated
html-strict or even html-transitional is at this point in history
*more* generally accessible than ASCII. I call it a hypothesis
because I can't off the top of my head think of an experiment to
validate/falsify it. -Tim
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf