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

["Doug Ewell" <doug at ewellic.org>]

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