On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 1:42 PM, John C Klensin<john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com>
wrote:
I do not believe that we can reach agreement on even the last
statement.
I am afraid that you may be correct. I am flabbergasted that consensus
on the superior usability of HTML over IETF legacy plain-text (all
other related issues aside) seems unlikely, but apparently there are a
large number whose experience of online information differs
dramatically from the people I hang out with.
Similarly, some of us believe that a plain ASCII format with
directly-encoded "hard" line endings is extremely stable as well
as extremely suitable for direct search and extraction of
material (e.g., by copy-and-paste operations).
As to copy-and-paste, your statement is probably not a majority
viewpoint. A high proportion of my copy-and-pastes are either into
something that'll be delivered via browser (the line-ends silently
vanish) or in an email (where they cause unpredictable breakage
depending on the settings of my email authoring and the recipient's
email reading software.
We draw some comfort from
the facts that it does not have to be interpreted by programs
for display,
I really hope you didn't mean what that sentence apparently says. No
file may be displayed without the invention of one or more computer
programs. I think that what you're saying is that IETF legacy
plain-text displays correctly in a terminal emulator (and incorrectly
in a browser). This is clearly correct but many of us feel that
correct display in a browser is of higher utility to a greater number
of potential spec users.
-T
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf