IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal draft formatting standards required

"Doug Ewell" <doug@ewellic.org> Fri, 03 July 2009 15:07 UTC

Return-Path: <doug@ewellic.org>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69C8E28C28E for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 08:07:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.016
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.016 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.844, BAYES_40=-0.185, FAKE_REPLY_C=2.012, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hxVhutbzlbiV for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 08:07:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpout06.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (smtpout06-01.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net [64.202.165.224]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id F2FE128C1D7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 08:07:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 30657 invoked from network); 3 Jul 2009 15:07:29 -0000
Received: from unknown (67.166.27.148) by smtpout06.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (64.202.165.224) with ESMTP; 03 Jul 2009 15:07:28 -0000
Message-ID: <01ACD6EF5D2742A1832D0D585B2185F4@DGBP7M81>
From: Doug Ewell <doug@ewellic.org>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal draft formatting standards required
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 09:07:22 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="utf-8"; reply-type="original"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:07:16 -0000

As always when this discussion occurs, there are at least three 
different issues swirling around:

1.  ASCII-only vs. UTF-8
2.  Plain text vs. higher-level formatting, for text flow and 
readability
3.  Whether it is a good idea to include high-quality pictures in RFCs

There are not the same issue, and it would help combatants on both sides 
not to mix them up.

I don't know where the argument "don't help authors prepare I-Ds using 
the tools of their choice, unless they are open-source" fits into this 
picture.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Thornton, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://www.ewellic.org
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  ˆ

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email