On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Doug Ewell<doug@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Tim Bray <tbray at textuality dot com> wrote: > >> 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." You're entirely correct, and my poor phrasing is less forgiveable because I was just giving Melissa a hard time for her assertions about "ASCII". Sorry. > 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. Right. As many have pointed out here, there are three separate issues here: 1. Usability 1.a Reader usability 1.b Author usability 2. Internationalization 3. Graphics My argument is that 1.a. and 2. would be dramatically improved by the introduction of HTML, while 1.b. would not on average change much across the universe of I-D authors. And that 3 is a less urgent issue than 1 and 2. -Tim _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf