Richard Shockey wrote: > > I do get the arguments in favour of ASCII, though I think there are > some pretty serious countervailing arguments (like, for instance, that > we can't spell many contributors' names, to take an easy one). But > the RFC format _is not_ plain ASCII. Just ask anyone whose draft has > failed the increasingly stringent and lengthy list of IDNits tests due > to bad pagination in their I-D. The difficulty to spell contributors' names is a completely ridiculous reason. If there is anyone competent to specify how to spell his name in plain ASCII, then it is the authors and contributors themselves -- and if they are available at all, then it is during the process of their contribution and the document creation. The existing plaintext ASCII format is easy and univerval. Any more fancy document formats come with plenty of problems and infinitesimal close to zero benefit. Creating, displaying and printing, processing and updating the I-D and RFCs in the current form was possible 30 years ago, is possible and quite easy today (just try NRoffEdit once), and will be possible and easy in 30 years from now. All other formats will come with a varying number of problems. Taking an existing formatted ASCII RFC or I-D (which you did not author yourself) and putting it back into authoring format is round 1 hour of work with Nroffedit. Diffing various revisions of documents is fairly easy with existing tools e.g. http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff The problem with basically all of the fancy format is, that none of your existing tools can cope with it, the possibility to create that format is often limited to specific platforms, environments or tools. Diffing with previoius versions of documents is difficult, converting a "published" document back into authoring format is EXTREMELY diffcult, the size of the document often grows by factors, and searching and displaying such documents may require specific new tools and platforms and be therefore impossible for a number of platforms and environments where RFCs and I-Ds are currently displayed, searched and processed. And searching for and comparing characteristics of graphics or graphical drawings instead of text is a field that needs another two decades of reasearch. It is much better to force an author to spend an hour to express himself clearly in ASCII text, than forcing several thousands of consumers of the document to spend several minutes to many hours trying to understand, process, compare and put into re-authoring some fancy creations available in a fancy document format. When I'm implementing a spec, I often quote the relevant spec in code comments. Quoting ASCII text is easy. Having to describe a fancy drawing of a spec is a lot of work, for each and every implementor. Force the document author to come up with that textual description, and it'll be a big overall saving. -Martin _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf