On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 1:42 PM, John C Klensin<john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > I do not believe that we can reach agreement on even the last > statement. I am afraid that you may be correct. I am flabbergasted that consensus on the superior usability of HTML over IETF legacy plain-text (all other related issues aside) seems unlikely, but apparently there are a large number whose experience of online information differs dramatically from the people I hang out with. > Similarly, some of us believe that a plain ASCII format with > directly-encoded "hard" line endings is extremely stable as well > as extremely suitable for direct search and extraction of > material (e.g., by copy-and-paste operations). As to copy-and-paste, your statement is probably not a majority viewpoint. A high proportion of my copy-and-pastes are either into something that'll be delivered via browser (the line-ends silently vanish) or in an email (where they cause unpredictable breakage depending on the settings of my email authoring and the recipient's email reading software. > We draw some comfort from > the facts that it does not have to be interpreted by programs > for display, I really hope you didn't mean what that sentence apparently says. No file may be displayed without the invention of one or more computer programs. I think that what you're saying is that IETF legacy plain-text displays correctly in a terminal emulator (and incorrectly in a browser). This is clearly correct but many of us feel that correct display in a browser is of higher utility to a greater number of potential spec users. -T _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf