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

[james woodyatt <jhw at apple.com>]

On Jul 3, 2009, at 08:07, Doug Ewell wrote:

> As always when this discussion occurs, there are at least three  
> different issues swirling around:
>
> 1.  ASCII-only vs. UTF-8
> 2.  Plain text vs. higher-level formatting, for text flow and  
> readability
> 3.  Whether it is a good idea to include high-quality pictures in RFCs
>
> There are not the same issue, and it would help combatants on both  
> sides not to mix them up.

I admire the attempt to separate these issues into orthogonal  
concerns, but I don't think it can succeed.

The common aspect of all these issues is the question of whether our  
archival format should A) continue to be limited to a string of ASCII  
characters formatted for printing with a fixed-width font, or B) if it  
should be expanded to include a document archival format that can  
preserve font, style and figures.

There is a related but separable topic of discussion once option B) is  
open for debate: what precisely should be the set of primary natural  
languages used in IETF documents?  Should it continue to be English  
only?  I'd very much prefer to see *that* discussion vigorously  
deferred while our archival format continues to be the largest  
practical obstacle to multilingualism.  I believe there are no  
reasonable candidates for archival formats that can preserve font,  
style and figures without also providing for localization.

> I don't know where the argument "don't help authors prepare I-Ds  
> using the tools of their choice, unless they are open-source" fits  
> into this picture.

Compared to the previous two issues, this one is just not so much  
important.


--
james woodyatt <jhw at apple.com>
member of technical staff, communications engineering