[rfc-i] reject the past ( was Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-flanagan-plaintext-00.txt)
touch at isi.edu
Thu Jun 26 10:19:12 PDT 2014
On 6/26/2014 10:02 AM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote:
> On 6/26/14, 10:30 AM, "Donald Eastlake" <d3e3e3 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> The IETF already has bad experience with adopting shiny new
>> technology. Postscript was permitted for a while for the normative
>> version of standards until the usual instability of such fancy things
>> caused that decision to be backed out. I can be pretty confident that
>> the 1968 version of ASCII isn't going to change. I'm equally confident
>> PDF and HTML and XML and ... will change.
> I agree that XML will change, in that far fewer people will care about it
> in the future.
> PDF? I don't have as much feel, but my guess is that as pagination
> becomes less valuable, PDF's benefits over HTML wane.
> HTML? I doubt that a carefully-chosen small subset of HTML will be
> unreadable 50 years from now. Yes, there will be new tags, but if the
> current ones stop working, so will a large part of the Internet.
The real question is whether updating the publication format hasn't
already devolved into designing a "Golden Record", trading utility for
the perceived needs of future authors to update old RFCs using source.
More information about the rfc-interest