[rfc-i] Resetting this format debate a bit

Tim Bray tbray at textuality.com
Sun Mar 25 15:16:16 PDT 2012

On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Michael Richardson <mcr at sandelman.ca> wrote:
>    Tim> 3. There are those who are irritated because many RFCs are provided in
>    Tim> a form that I can’t print on a Mac
> Why is this our problem?
> Why isn't a bug in the MAC/Windows printing eco-system, that apparently
> .txt files with ^L characters no longer work?

We want implementors of Internet software to use our specifications,
and it would seem like a good thing to remove barriers to this
happening. The fact that a very high proportion of implementors choose
to use operating systems that lack good support for the legacy spec
format may displease us, but I don't think it's very smart to ignore
the problem.  -Tim

> (C> copy rfc1.txt lpt1: did work at one point, and "lpr rfc1.txt"
> worked under Unix until we got CUPS... )
> Having said that, I understand the desire to have .mobi format.
> --
> ]       He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life!           |  firewalls  [
> ]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
> ] mcr at sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
>   Kyoto Plus: watch the video <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx1ycLXQSE>
>                       then sign the petition.

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list