Tim Bray <tbray at textuality dot com> wrote:
I don't think that the second part of your assertion is correct. I'm
not trying to be difficult. I introduce by example the huge number of
mobile devices that handle HTML effortlessly and IETF legacy ASCII not
at all. Also, the large number of standard office printers that print
HTML instantly and correctly at the touch of control- or command-P,
but can render IETF legacy ASCII on paper only with various gyrations
and sidesteps.
I'd still be more confident that the differences between the issues were
understood if the above text read "IETF legacy plain-text" instead of
"IETF legacy ASCII." If we moved from ASCII to UTF-8 tomorrow, but
otherwise kept the current plain-text format with its lines separated by
CRLF and its pages separated by FF, and all of the other rigid
formatting constraints, the same complaints about plain-text versus HTML
would exist.
--
Doug Ewell * Thornton, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14
http://www.ewellic.org
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages ˆ
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf