Hi,
What I hear in these discussions can get translated into a lot of it
would be nice and
little if any it is essential that.
Changes to existing procedures tend to get driven by it is essential
that, which is my point.
A working group saying that
the existing format restrictions are
On 3 jul 2009, at 0:35, Pete Resnick wrote:
A much better solution would be HTML, if it's sufficiently
constrained.
Or, gee, we could generalize to a very constrained XML format
XML isn't a display format.
As Dave put it, the current RFC format is unfriendly, unnecessary,
possibly
Total of 74 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Jul 3 00:53:06 EDT 2009
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
8.11% |6 | 8.48% |38843 | iljit...@muada.com
5.41% |4 | 5.94% |27220 |
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 3 jul 2009, at 0:35, Pete Resnick wrote:
A much better solution would be HTML, if it's sufficiently
constrained.
Or, gee, we could generalize to a very constrained XML format
XML isn't a display format.
As Dave put it, the current RFC format is unfriendly,
On 3 jul 2009, at 13:13, Stewart Bryant wrote:
That is an author centric view. It is far more important to take a
reader centric view.
Do we have any objective information on what format produced the
clearest information transfer in the reader.
Well, readers can't read what authors can't
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 3 jul 2009, at 13:13, Stewart Bryant wrote:
That is an author centric view. It is far more important to take a
reader centric view.
Do we have any objective information on what format produced the
clearest information transfer in the reader.
Well, readers
Stefan Winter wrote:
I'll have a go at it (I am not a working group, but I hope you allow me
to express my opinion anyway). Plain ASCII makes work on drafts which
deal with internationalisation very hard. I have just uploaded a draft
with an example second-level domain containing the German
Martin Rex wrote:
Stefan Winter wrote:
I'll have a go at it (I am not a working group, but I hope you allow me
to express my opinion anyway). Plain ASCII makes work on drafts which
deal with internationalisation very hard. I have just uploaded a draft
with an example second-level domain
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
Stewart Bryant stbry...@cisco.com wrote:
That is an author centric view. It is far more important to take a
reader centric view.
I must dissent.
Reader-centric views belong to publishing entities that generate
income (whether by purchase, subscription, or advertising). There have
On 7/3/09 at 10:16 AM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 3 jul 2009, at 0:35, Pete Resnick wrote:
A much better solution would be HTML, if it's sufficiently constrained.
Or, gee, we could generalize to a very constrained XML format
XML isn't a display format.
And how is this
John Leslie wrote:
Stewart Bryant stbry...@cisco.com wrote:
That is an author centric view. It is far more important to take a
reader centric view.
I must dissent.
Reader-centric views belong to publishing entities that generate
income (whether by purchase, subscription, or
On Jul 3, 2009, at 8:07 AM, Doug Ewell wrote:
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
Pete
Getting rid of a page-layout format as our authoritative form is
primary. Using characters that do not occur in English is next down
the list. Everything else is extra.
Surely maximizing the probability of correct understanding
by the reader is primary. Everything else is just a
Dear colleagues,
Before the substantive points of the original post get buried under
counter-arguments against some _other_ point, I just want to make sure
we're all talking about the same things. There are, in my reading,
two completely different points in Iljitsch's original post:
1. The
Pete Resnick wrote:
Getting rid of a page-layout format as our authoritative form
is primary. Using characters that do not occur in English is next down
the list. Everything else is extra.
What is primary is to ensure that the revisable form can be easily read 30 years
from now when
Just so it does not get completely overlooked, I will point out that the
page numbers are also useful for the table of contents. And the ToC is
very helpful to me when I need to find something in the document. (Yes,
hyperlinks would help in many cases. But not all.) the ToC is also
helpful
Douglas Otis dotis at mail dash abuse dot org wrote:
Reliance upon open source tools ensures the original RFCs and ID can
be maintained by others, without confronting unresolvable
compatibility issues.
Whether a tool is open source or not has nothing to do with how many
people know how to
hello all, sorry for my offtopic post
a friend and developer wrote an
ANTIFILTER software in the past two weeks for the iranian people
http://nofilter.isgreat.org/
SPREAD THE WORD !!!
regards
marc
P.S. if you have fast internet connection and like to share get in
contact with him via
19 matches
Mail list logo
