[rfc-i] Data point [Re: Fwd:I-D ACTION:draft-hoffman-utf8-rfcs-03.txt]
touch at ISI.EDU
Tue Oct 7 13:08:10 PDT 2008
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Julian Reschke wrote:
> Joe Touch wrote:
>> xml2rfc is a way to write docs, not to read or print them.
> I didn't claim otherwise.
> text/plain in UTF-8 displays fine in browsers, and prints fine once you
> can a short script on them, or use the service on tools.ietf.org. For
> any platform that has a relatively modern web browser.
The point of ASCII is the ubiquity of the platforms that are supported.
Requiring a 'relatively modern web browser' - and assuming that these
files are viewed only after processed by an HTML-izer - isn't a
baby-step. It destroys point-and-click viewabilty we've had for a decade
> OK, just to make sure I get that right: you did manage to get Word to
> produce ASCII RFCs, and you like that. You do not know how to get Word
> to produce UTF-8.
> That's sufficient reason for not *allowing* that format
A format that can be generated by exactly one tool isn't a baby step
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the rfc-interest