[rfc-i] "wysiwyg" requirement

Tim Bray tbray at textuality.com
Tue Jan 15 07:17:23 PST 2013


Don't feed the troll.
On Jan 15, 2013 12:51 AM, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:

> On 2013-01-15 06:52, Martin Rex wrote:
>
>> Tim Bray wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Except for, nroff is an outdated tool that has no notion of structural
>>> integrity (or actually of structure at all), fosters the illusion that
>>> 66-line 80-column monospaced paginated text is anything but an accidental
>>> artifact of long-obsolete display technology, and and whose use is
>>> rapidly
>>> heading into the territory of ?actively harmful?.
>>>
>>> My problem is that I can?t help thinking of the IETF as (in part) a
>>> publisher of high-value intellectual content, and that content deserves
>>> better respect than is shown by the use of tools that were second-rate 30
>>> years ago.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Those who try to deveive themselves and others that displaying
>> proportional text would be a trivial, long-solved problem, probably
>> do not have the slightest clue what they're actually talking about.
>>
>> See this information about how much this is still an area of
>> research, trial-and-error, frustration, and user&developer dismay
>> because things regularly will not work as expected, and in particular
>> not in the first few releases of a software:
>>
>>    http://www.virtualdub.org/**blog/pivot/entry.php?id=379<http://www.virtualdub.org/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=379>
>>
>> -Martin
>>
>
> As far as I can tell, we do not *plan* to *write* software that displays
> proportional fonts. We plan to *use* *existing* software.
>
> Best regards, Julian
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20130115/7ad51305/attachment.htm>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list