On 02/25/10 00:10, Antonio Querubin wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
>> I think it's out of scope of a *protocol* standard. However, I think Doug
>> has a valid point, so maybe we should add an explicit statement that
>> the document defines what should be transmitted and presented to humans,
>> but does not define internal storage within an application or database.
>
> The abstract and introduction seemed to already imply this but how about
>
> s/This document also recommends a canonical representation format that
> best avoids confusion./To avoid confusion this document recommends a
> canonical text presentation format but does not define internal storage
> formats within an application or database./
I like the idea, but IMO it's a little too redundant and repetitive. :)
I thought some of Brian's wording was good, and some of yours, and I
think that mentioning explicitly what IS first is a good idea. Something
like:
This document defines a representation format for transmission and
presentation to humans. It does not define a format for internal
storage, such as within an application or database.
Sound good?
Doug
--
... and that's just a little bit of history repeating.
-- Propellerheads
Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with
a domain name makeover! http://SupersetSolutions.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
