[rfc-i] reject the past ( was Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-flanagan-plaintext-00.txt)
tbray at textuality.com
Thu Jun 26 10:24:42 PDT 2014
The proposition that basic HTML will become less useful than the legacy
line-printer format in the lifetime of anyone reading this is not remotely
Anyone advancing it is wasting our time.
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Joe Touch <touch at isi.edu> wrote:
> 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.
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
- Tim Bray (If you’d like to send me a private message, see
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the rfc-interest