On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker<hallam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > The TXT versions do not print on my printer and have not printed > reliably on any printer I have ever owned. Yes, and that history goes back a couple of decades for me. > I know that some UNIX folk just love to rub the noses of the rest of > us in this dog poop but it gets tiresome. Just because it works for > some people does not mean that it is the best way to do things. Hey, I'm as Unix-y a person as there is, and simultaneously as fierce a despiser as you can find of 80-character 66-line hard-to-read impossible-to-print ignores-decades-of-advances-in-publishing-tech i18n-oblivious ASCIIlicious IETF worst practices. Another data point, by the way. I am a major consumer of the Internet through a mobile device (an Android phone in my case, but whatever). RFCs are essentially unusable on this device in the legacy text format, but work fine in xml2rfc-generated HTML. I think that in the big picture, usability on a mobile device is several times as important as usability on the hypothetical ASCII-capable line printer that presumably must have once existed somewhere. > The W3C has worked out how to print professional looking standards in > a format that we can safely assume will be readable for the next > thousand years at least. We will lose the ability to read bits long > before we lose the ability to read HTML, or for that matter reverse > engineer PDF. Yes, although I wouldn't recommend adopting their publishing system. Can we please join the current millennium? I'd be happy to help. -Tim _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf