At 16:05 21/11/2005, Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 9:54 AM +0100 11/21/05, Julien.Maisonneuve@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
The IETF is probably the ONLY meaningful organisation in the world
that insists on using ascii-only specifications. Any
rationalization of that practise should try to explain why we are
so exceptional before embarking on specious arguments on the
relative merits of writing specs in morse code to improve design simplicity.
We are so exceptional because all of our old standards can be
implemented from as-is, without any possibly-lossy conversion.
Standards organizations that used, for example, Microsoft Word
version 2 for the PC, as their base document format, have had to
convert their documents multiple times for current users to be able
to read them. That conversion is sometime clean; often, it involves
(lossy) humans reformatting text and pictures.
As others have pointed out on this thread, the ASCII art in IETF
specs is (or should be) optional to implementers. The corollary is:
why bother to go to a format that uses something other than ASCII
art, if it is an optional component? Other than prettiness, what is
the advantage for our intended audience of protocol developers?
This is not to say that all RFCs do just fine with ASCII art. We
have non-standards documents, which we want the outside world to
read, that look silly with the current formatting restrictions. We
live with projecting that visual clumsiness, as geeks often do.
I understand this. But it restricts RFC to the sole English (ASCII) language.
Translating RFC as an authoritative text is therefore impossible.
jfc
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf