[rfc-i] Resetting this format debate a bit

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Sun Mar 25 18:14:35 PDT 2012

On 3/25/2012 3:16 PM, Tim Bray wrote:
> 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

We do need to differentiate between the legacy spec format and the 
format we all use on a daily basis.

The latter can be generated in a variety of forms that are useful at any 
given time.

E.g., consider that microfiche is a great archive format (long-lasting, 
high density, etc.), but it's terrible for daily use, and thus was 
rarely considered for that purpose (magnified printouts were used instead).


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list