Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
John,
You mean that we should update the current medieval print format to
take advantage of the best technology available to the Victorians?
Why go to all that trouble to create infrastructure to support an
obsolete document format when we can get all the infrastructure required to
support a modern, open format that delivers professional results for free?
Moreover there is a much higher probability that third party tools will support a common W3C/IETF format than an IETF only format.
Which tools would those be? Cat, tr, emacs, vi, grep, cut, sed, curses,
wc, more or less?
Am a Luddite. I like ASCII. I despise PDF, and most especially its
hideous anti-aliased
fonts. As software engineer, I don't need drawings that I can use to run
a lathe or a
milling machine. Simple stick figures, ladder diagrams, and boxes for
bits and bytes
are about all I really need to see to transform an RFC into code. As
protocol designer,
the fewer Paper Clips sent by Beelzebub himself, the better. If it can't
be edited using
the buffer gap method, I'm not interested.
Victorian? Pah. The death of Prince Albert of Ascii would require a
minimum of a
year of mourning, and a smart new black wardrobe for Phill. Not to
mention a
cross sovereign.
Mike, we are not amused.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf