Fixed font v multiple fonts

[Joel M. Halpern]

I have trouble seeing this as an issue about "who gets to decide".  There 
have been repeated discussions of the question on the IETF list (where it 
belongs).  Each time, it is quite clear that the rough consensus of the 
community is to retain the current policy because its benefits exceed its 
drawbacks.

Folks have noticed that there are some difficulties preparing documents, so 
they have built tools to help.  There is a MS Word template.  There are a 
set of tools that Marshall Rose has pulled together to allow one to prepare 
the material in XML.

What is being said here is that the question of what the format for 
documents should be is not a core problem.  Given that we have evidence of 
significant discussion and community input on that topic, I do not see 
evidence that this is a "top-down" problem, or even evidence that there is 
a community perception of a top down order.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

At 06:18 AM 7/10/2003 -0700, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
>
> > I totally agree with Keith here, this is not a subject for this WG.
>
>Apparently on the grounds that you don't think it is a problem.
>
>The PROBLEM I see with the IETF is that the top down management insists on
>having its way on every damn last thing. Including this issue.
>
>If the IETF establishment won't even budge on this one then there is zero
>value to the rest of PROBLEM.
>
>
> > Regarding the RFC document format, the RFC ASCII format is in
> > my opinion outstanding, compared to the complicated
> > formatting rules used by other organizations where you waste
> > lots of time just on getting the document format right.
>
>
>I have never spent half as much time getting a document format right as I
>have for the IETF. Even the W3C rules for HTML are not as much hassle.
>
>Again, the issue is who gets to decide.