On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Doug Ewell<doug(_at_)ewellic(_dot_)org> wrote:
Tim Bray <tbray at textuality dot com> wrote:
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."
You're entirely correct, and my poor phrasing is less forgiveable
because I was just giving Melissa a hard time for her assertions about
"ASCII". Sorry.
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.
Right. As many have pointed out here, there are three separate issues here:
1. Usability
1.a Reader usability
1.b Author usability
2. Internationalization
3. Graphics
My argument is that 1.a. and 2. would be dramatically improved by the
introduction of HTML, while 1.b. would not on average change much
across the universe of I-D authors. And that 3 is a less urgent issue
than 1 and 2.
-Tim
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf