On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 10:21:18PM +0100, Doug Barton wrote: > 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.
Adding one more to the beauty contest: This document defines a canonical textual representation format. It does not define a format for internal storage, such as within an application or database. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
