On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 15:04:11 GMT, "The Happy Hippy"
 wrote in
<L3qvm.98548$OO7.85722@text.news.virginmedia.com>:

>The fact that there is a need for the media type is because it would 
>otherwise be shown as plain text. The only reason plaintext HTML is turned 
>into something else is because a client chooses to render it other than 
>present it as plaintext.

The point is to prohibit things that do not have simple plain text
rendering as their most preferred form of rendering. HTML is one of a
number of wrappings for text that do not have the required property. One
of the more unfortunate features of HTML for our present purposes is
that HTML created with care by someone who is aware of the need may
present its textual content in a way that is more or less readable when
rendered as plain text. There are unfortunately all too many tools that
generate HTML that appears as an impenetrable mess when rendered as
plain text despite the user of the tool being presented with readable
text and a tempting array of features that appear to add some gloss to
the presentation but which increase the impenetrability or the result.

>But the whole issue is descending into argument on what loose generic terms 
>actually mean in specific practice. Which is why, IMO, it's far better to be 
>specific within the guidelines about what one means rather than leaving it 
>open to interpretation, and especially when the 'official interpretation' is 
>held as an unwritten rule.

Being sufficiently specific is very much harder than most people seem to
think and the resulting specifications tend to be impenetrable to those
who are not inclined to delve into the details of a fairly wide rage of
issues.

>It seems odd to me that 'the usual wording' is to make it clear in a charter 
>that HTML is specifically not permitted, while it's argued that the wording 
>in the guidelines is obviously intended to include HTML as not permitted. 
>Seems to be a case of wanting to have ones cake and eat it; guidelines are 
>clear enough without specifying HTML explicitly, charter wording would not 
>be seen as such without specifying it explicitly. 

I would expect a dummies guide to give examples that would be seen as
inappropriate in a specification. It seems to me that the intended
audience for a charter ought to be readers of and posters to the group
in question and those considering becoming a reader or poster. It seems
to me that the intended audience for the "guidelines for group creation"
is those who wish to create a group or participate in the process by
which groups are created. I would expect those in the latter category to
understand that HTML and RTF are two of many formats that fall under the
general prohibition of 'binaries' in this context without having to be
spoon-fed the examples or have the rationale explained in tedious
detail.

Whenever a new charter is written there is an opportunity to incorporate
experience that has accumulated since the guidelines were written or
that was omitted for some other reason. Changing the guidelines to
reflect that experience will require effort since the change must be
made through the established process. Unfortunately, part of the
experience is that changing the guidelines will require significant
effort and dedication along with the determination to overcome both the
objection that the guidelines are working well enough that change will
likely do more harm than good and the appeals for all sorts of other
changes to be incorporated at the same time.

At the moment it appears that there is nobody who believes that the
guidelines are badly enough broken that a fix is necessary, cares enough
to want to fix them and has the time and energy available to do the
necessary work.

-- 
Owen Rees
[one of] my preferred email address[es] and more stuff can be
found at <http://www.users.waitrose.com/~owenrees/index.html>