Tim Bray <tbray at textuality dot com> 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. Also, the large number of standard office printers that print > HTML instantly and correctly at the touch of control- or command-P, > but can render IETF legacy ASCII on paper only with various gyrations > and sidesteps.
I'd still be more confident that the differences between the issues were understood if the above text read "IETF legacy plain-text" instead of "IETF legacy ASCII." If we moved from ASCII to UTF-8 tomorrow, but otherwise kept the current plain-text format with its lines separated by CRLF and its pages separated by FF, and all of the other rigid formatting constraints, the same complaints about plain-text versus HTML would exist. --Doug Ewell * Thornton, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14http://www.ewellic.orghttp://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.htmlhttp://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages ˆ _______________________________________________Ietf mailing listIetf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf