ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Why the normative form of IETF Standards is ASCII

2010-03-11 11:03:32
Richard Shockey wrote:

I do get the arguments in favour of ASCII, though I think there are
some pretty serious countervailing arguments (like, for instance, that
we can't spell many contributors' names, to take an easy one).  But
the RFC format _is not_ plain ASCII.  Just ask anyone whose draft has
failed the increasingly stringent and lengthy list of IDNits tests due
to bad pagination in their I-D.


The difficulty to spell contributors' names is a completely ridiculous
reason.  If there is anyone competent to specify how to spell his name
in plain ASCII, then it is the authors and contributors themselves
-- and if they are available at all, then it is during the process
of their contribution and the document creation.


The existing plaintext ASCII format is easy and univerval.  Any more
fancy document formats come with plenty of problems and infinitesimal
close to zero benefit.

Creating, displaying and printing, processing and updating the I-D and RFCs
in the current form was possible 30 years ago, is possible and quite easy 
today (just try NRoffEdit once), and will be possible and easy in
30 years from now.  All other formats will come with a varying number
of problems.

Taking an existing formatted ASCII RFC or I-D (which you did not author
yourself) and putting it back into authoring format is round 1 hour of
work with Nroffedit.

Diffing various revisions of documents is fairly easy with existing tools
e.g.  http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff


The problem with basically all of the fancy format is, that none of
your existing tools can cope with it, the possibility to create that
format is often limited to specific platforms, environments or tools.
Diffing with previoius versions of documents is difficult, converting
a "published" document back into authoring format is EXTREMELY diffcult,
the size of the document often grows by factors, and searching and
displaying such documents may require specific new tools and platforms
and be therefore impossible for a number of platforms and environments
where RFCs and I-Ds are currently displayed, searched and processed.


And searching for and comparing characteristics of graphics or
graphical drawings instead of text is a field that needs another
two decades of reasearch. 

It is much better to force an author to spend an hour to express himself
clearly in ASCII text, than forcing several thousands of consumers of
the document to spend several minutes to many hours trying to
understand, process, compare and put into re-authoring some fancy
creations available in a fancy document format.


When I'm implementing a spec, I often quote the relevant spec in
code comments.  Quoting ASCII text is easy.  Having to describe
a fancy drawing of a spec is a lot of work, for each and every
implementor.  Force the document author to come up with that
textual description, and it'll be a big overall saving.


-Martin
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf