Re: Why the normative form of IETF Standards is ASCII

[Mark Atwood <mra@xxxxxxxxx>]

.epub has a number of serious faults of its own, that are starting to be experienced as people are playing with it in wake of the iPad stuff.  It's basically a dead end repackaging of an old HTML spec, and it has nobody working on getting it up to date, or working on it at all.

On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Richard Shockey <richard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

My my it must be springtime! Time for our annual food fight ritual of ASCII
in RFC's.

Actually I was thinking that the IETF should approach the International
Digital Publishing Forum with the thought that they consider making the
.epub format an IETF standard.  .epub is getting considerable traction and
I've personally found it to useful to convert some RFC's into .epub for
storage on my Amazon kindle and soon to have iPad.  You have to use desktop
Stanza to convert again to the Kindle native format but this permits the
document to be read and more important the fonts to be adjusted on the
display for those of us with increasing issues with 10 point type.

http://www.openebook.org/

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.

Best,

A

--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Shinkuro, Inc.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf