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

Robert Sparks rjsparks at nostrum.com
Wed Aug 25 14:04:53 PDT 2021

On 8/25/21 3:23 PM, Carsten Bormann 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.

I feel the same, but I don't believe everyone in the conversation does. 
It feels to me that there are people who believe it should be a goal to 
work to turn the text format off. Am I wrong?

> 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