[rfc-i] What the text version is used for (was Re: The <tt> train wreck)

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Sun Aug 22 01:55:19 PDT 2021

Am 21.08.2021 um 19:55 schrieb Robert Sparks:
> Tearing out the separate topic (as Carsten already identified).
> ...
>> Decoration in plain txt was removed because it was distracting (it was),
>> and thus people avoided font changes altogether. If there was a
>> consensus what the TXT version is needed for, this would help us in
>> deciding things like these.
> There have been several times we have had long threads where people have
> told us what they use the text formats for. They've been compelling, at
> least to me, for helping ensure the format continues to be produced.
> I truly don't know what you're looking for when you say "consensus what
> the TXT version is needed for". Are you looking for a document that's
> gone through some formal consensus-gauging process that iterates these
> things? Are you just looking for an easy-to-find list of things that
> people have told us? Can you point more clearly at what you think we
> should have that would help?

I admit that I did not consider at all *how* to get to the list. What I
wanted to say is that if we need to tune the plain text output in the
future, it would be great to have a list of things to check for.

> I note that your choice of words "what the TXT version is needed for"
> frames things differently than "what the TXT version is used for". The
> difference will make the conversation less one of defending the format
> and more of exposing what's people actually need from it.

Yep, that was the intention.

Best regards, Julian

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list