On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 12:00:27PM -0800, Dave CROCKER wrote: > requirement should only call for use of extremely well-established > data representations, where 'extremely well-established' means > highly stable and massively widespread for a significant number of > years. Like, for instance, a page-layout format that depends on the physical medium (apprently one current on a line printer some time in the distant past) in order to establish things like word wrapping? When we start to have a serious discussion about coping with the IETF's own ridiculous formatting rules (which are not "plain ASCII", before anyone starts with that self-evidently false line of argument), then I will have sympathy for arguments that we should start making rules about what we can accept. As long as we're so conservative in what we send that our output is, in its official form, unreadable on 2/3 of the computers I regularly use, I think we should be extremely liberal in what we accept. Best, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf