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

Carsten Bormann cabo at tzi.org
Wed Aug 25 13:23:50 PDT 2021


On 25. Aug 2021, at 22:06, Eric Rescorla <ekr at rtfm.com> wrote:
> 
> I've been following this thread but tbh I'm having trouble understanding what's at stake here. It seems like there are a lot of different uses of the text format and we have tools that generate it. Are we really considering deprecating it? Perhaps, we can just leave it more or less as-is?

Indeed: Clearly, plaintext is not going away.

John Levine has put out the summary right at the start of this subthread:

> This tells me that we need to keep the text version and it needs to have the full
> contents of the document, but not that it has to be particularly beautiful.  The HTML
> is where you get the beautiful version.

The root of this discussion was the situation we have created around the <tt> element.
This has recently led to an incompatible change (ticket 600) to its rendering that entirely seems to be motivated by making the plaintext more beautiful.

Quoting you again:

> Perhaps, we can just leave it more or less as-is?


This.
*We need to back out the change made in ticket 600 before it gets deployed*.

Grüße, Carsten



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list