ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal draft formatting standards required

2009-07-06 00:03:25
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
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>