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

Eric Rescorla ekr at rtfm.com
Wed Aug 25 13:26:21 PDT 2021


Sounds like we're on the same page. I believe that the plain text is about
as good as it's going to get and so mostly not breaking it seems like the
requirement.

-Ekr


On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 1:23 PM Carsten Bormann <cabo at tzi.org> wrote:

> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20210825/d52fbc94/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list