Subject: RE: Process for Process Change (Was Diagrams ((Was RFCs should bedistributed in XML))

From: "Lars-Erik Jonsson (LU/EAB)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 09:04:37 +0100

> P.S. Some good arguments have already been made on both sides of the
> ASCII art issue.  I, like many others, use Word, etc. editors 
> capable of sophisticated graphics, and have to struggle to convert to 
> ASCII art in I-Ds.  IMO this is a  ridiculous waste of time and loss
of 
> information!

I also use Word as editor when writing ID's, since I like WYSIWYG, spell
checking, etc. However, I am very happy when I get the document out in
pure text. After having had to read 3GPP documents (in Word format), I
only have bad experiences from Word as an official document format. Of
course it would still be possible to have restrictions on the complexity
and length of documents (two parameters that significantly affect the
stability of MS Word), but it is easier when the format itself is of 
low complexity, as ASCII is. 

I believe there could be other formats that would be ok for the IETF,
but I do not see the point. 

/L-E

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf