+1
Since nobody was using teleprinters 500 years ago the introduction of
them here as a point of difference is ridiculous.
And the idea that HTML is any less stable than the hacks people have
developed to make non-ASCII characters work in ASCII is totally
absurd. We can reasonably expect that within the next ten, twenty
years, handwriting recognition will render such hacks obsolete and the
memory of them will be as obscure as Morse code is today.
I don't think there is any real likelihood we will entirely loose the
ability to decipher such hacks, any more than it is likely that all
traces of Morse will ever disappear. But that knowledge is going to
become increasingly obscure and ambiguous.
There is no way that I am going to take a document on
'internationalization' seriously if it is printed in an idiotic format
requiring recourse to obscure transcoding hacks to decipher it when
both the original source document preparation format (XML2RFC) and my
screen are capable of displaying the actual character. Absolutely the
only reason that the information is not present is that some people
have decided that their opinions are soooo damn important that they
are going to maliciously and spitefully create shit-work for me.
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Julian Reschke
<julian(_dot_)reschke(_at_)gmx(_dot_)de> wrote:
On 15.03.2010 22:08, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
Before you answer that, here is a list of consensus requirements on
the document format:
The fundamental consensus requirement is that the document format MUST
be widely (and internationally) legible.
The internationalization requirement automatically excludes non-ASCII
characters.
How so?
Pure ASCII HTML may (or may not) be widely legible. However,
2) Readily supported by a wide range of authoring tools
3) Conformance can be checked using automatic tools
4) Open specification, stable, non proprietary
HTML is already too complex and unstable that there is no hope that
UNSTABLE?
some IETF-specific profiling can be widely and stably supported.
Disagreed.
5) Reversible, able to recover editing format from publication format
I do not believe reversibility is required as long as the source format is
preserved. It would be nice, though.
Reversibility does not help if an editor can not recognize (nor input)
some character, which also requires pure ASCII.
Please elaborate.
6) Longeivity, guarantee of being able to interpret them in 1000 years
Then, we should use a format available at least 500 years ago.
Were you using HTML 500 years ago?
Very helpful.
Best regards, Julian
--
--
New Website: http://hallambaker.com/
View Quantum of Stupid podcasts, Tuesday and Thursday each week,
http://quantumofstupid.com/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf