On Nov 21, 2005, at 7:05 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
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?
The advantage is that you can correctly represent words which come from languages other than English.
In terms of accessibility, I advance the hypothesis that validated html-strict or even html-transitional is at this point in history *more* generally accessible than ASCII. I call it a hypothesis because I can't off the top of my head think of an experiment to validate/falsify it. -Tim
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf