[rfc-i] Character sets, was Comments on draft-iab-rfcformat

Phillip Hallam-Baker hallam at gmail.com
Wed Dec 19 07:24:01 PST 2012

On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 11:59 PM, John R Levine <johnl at taugh.com> wrote:

> We've spent the past decade saying that we can't do anything that might
>>> inconvenience the ever smaller number of people who use 80 character
>>> page printers, while totally ignoring the ever larger number who use the
>>> kinds of devices that people actually use these days, web browsers,
>>> tablets, and the like.  Really, it's time to get beyond that.
>> I do not have any number about this, but I would guess that the
>> percentage of people who want only ASCII is higher if you count only the
>> people who actually implement I-Ds/RFCs.
> Sheesh, we can all pull numbers out of various bits of our bodies.
>  I am a developer, and when I have to carefully read each word and analyze
>> the meaning of each sentence, there is no better support for me than a
>> printed page in ASCII.
> I also write my share of code that implmenents various standards, and I
> prefer a printed page that looks typeset, not like a 1960s line printer, or
> maybe something on my tablet, or legible on my screen. I realize that
> tastes vary, as a general principle, it would be nice if we tried not to
> assume that everyone in the world is just like onesself.

Looking round the Engineering dept at my former employer I saw a large
number of nutshell guides cracked open to code from and almost never an RFC.

Part of my concern here is that the Engineers who implement stuff are
reading the secondary sources like the nutshell guides because they find
the RFCs to be unreadable.

Website: http://hallambaker.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20121219/1c4606d4/attachment.htm>

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list