[rfc-i] use cases for page breaking hints, Re: Update on the plain text thread(s)
ietf at thomasclausen.org
Mon Jun 30 12:25:55 PDT 2014
> On 30 Jun 2014, at 19:20, Ted Lemon <mellon at fugue.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 30, 2014, at 1:01 PM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) <Chris.Dearlove at baesystems.com> wrote:
>> Giving me a hard time for using a linguistic discussion in an informal posting when that's nothing to do with the subject is completely inappropriate. Repeating it, more than doubly so. Go fight that war somewhere where it matters. The fact that you've decided to spend effort on that rather than anything of substance is telling.
> What I said was truthful, albeit understandably unpalatable to you. If that makes you not want to continue to participate, that's unfortunate. You don't even need to stop using the generic masculine; you just have to deal with me occasionally hassling you about it. It's entirely up to you.
As a non-native English-speaker myself, I *sincerely* hope that a sitting AD is not suggesting that it's OK to hassle folks (his words) for (in his opinion) incorrect, or (in his opinion) non-politically-correct use of a subtlety of a detail of the English language ...
... and this, on a mailing-lists, of all things, and not in normative text incurring the risk of ambiguities in a specification wrecking havoc on the Internet.
>> Furthermore you can't even read what I've been posting when you say " I would encourage you to stop focusing on how you personally would use plain text, though"
>> I've been focussing on printability, not plain text per se. I'll just note that Brian Carpenter thinks documents should be printable. I think I can probably leave him to make it happen.
> Yes, you've been focusing on how you use plain text in the context of printing. That was my point.
>> Your whole discussion or reflowability is also beside my point. I'm not trying to impose nothing flowable on you.
> No, it's not beside the point. If we decide that we want the text to be reflowable (and we have decided that), then there are a number of implications, one of which is that page numbers are no longer dependable.
>> I see no point in continuing to discuss this with you.
> I'm okay either way.
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest