On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 11:12:49AM -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote a message of 59 lines which said:
> In that case, this is *NOT* truly net-utf8 as one would understand > it in normal English. [Personnally, I like the term and it seems to me, in my broken english, quite clear.] > Instead it is the Unicode version of NVT. Do you mean that a simple change of the name of the protocol would be sufficient to address your concerns? If so, based on John Klensin's excellent explanations in http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg49905.html, I suggest: 1) Really plain text, as in NVT, with almost only CRLF sequences as formatting: Unicode-NVT (currently in draft-klensin-net-utf8-07.txt) 2) Markup text as in XML: out of scope. 3) Plain text but using the full power of Unicode formatting: Net-UTF8 (currently not in any I-D, not widely in use and I'm skeptical about it, despite the fact that it is technologically tempting) Will it be better for you? (Not for me but may be the rough consensus is against me.) _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
