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

[Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de>]

Melinda Shore 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.  
>
> I've never run into a device that can't display ASCII at
> all (if it can display HTML it can display plain ASCII), but

Some EBook readers, as far as I recall, display XHTML fine, but do not 
display plain text. And even if they do, you will encounter the line 
wrap problem.

> have used and owned a large number of devices that can't
> display HTML.  Plus, there appears to be a certain amount
> of whimsy involved with rendering HTML and displays can be
> inconsistent, which 1) is one of the complaints about the
> current format, and 2) is undesirable for the display of
> technical specifications.
> ...

Of course that depends on the type of HTML we would use. For instance, 
if you get inconsistent results with the HTML my XSLT variant of xml2rfc 
produces, please let me know (example: 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2616.html>).

BR, Julian