Re: Towards consensus on document format

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 2010-03-16 05:42, Doug Ewell wrote:
...
> Note that I am not arguing in favor of plain text as the IETF standard. 
> I just want to keep this part of the discussion real.  There is no
> requirement anywhere that plain-text files may contain only ASCII
> characters.

That requirement is explicit for RFCs.

This was originally in RFC 2223 and its predecessors back to RFC825.
Now it's in
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/rfc-style

Since we failed to get consensus even on the minor step proposed
by http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-hoffman-utf8-rfcs,
I really don't see this conversation converging on a radical
change.

Also, PHB's list of options is tendentious (by referring
contemptuously to "teleprinter" format) and ambiguous
(since there is no such thing as "the" HTML format for RFCs).

As an archival format, I am still very happy with ASCII.
Guaranteed layout, trivially searchable. The tools team
HTML markup is nice, but redundant as far as archiving goes.

   Brian (who will once again regret having risen to the bait)

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

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]