Re: Last Call: 'Labels in Subject Headers Considered Ineffective At Best' to Informational RFC
At 11:30 25/02/2005, Carl Malamud wrote: > A very simple solution would be to write the documents in French :-) That would be illegal. ;) This was a joke, but you make it an issue: illegal for who? ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: 'Labels in Subject Headers Considered Ineffective At Best' to Informational RFC
*> *> > A very simple solution would be to write the documents in French :-) *> > *> *> That would be illegal. ;) *> *> Carl *> Ah, but here is the clever bit. We don't CALL it French, we call it Freedom Language. Bob Braden ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: 'Labels in Subject Headers Considered Ineffective At Best' to Informational RFC
> A very simple solution would be to write the documents in French :-) > That would be illegal. ;) Carl ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: 'Labels in Subject Headers Considered Ineffective At Best' to Informational RFC
Carl Malamud wrote: > my repeated apologies to any citizens of Freedonia as well Maybe you could mention that RfC 3834 with its "[Auto]" label is and was no problem, and it doesn't need any "solicitation classes" to work. But don't mention "Re:" unless you REally plan to REvive some endless threads, it's already obvious. Bye, Frank ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: 'Labels in Subject Headers Considered Ineffective At Best' to Informational RFC
At 00:15 25/02/2005, Carl Malamud wrote: http://trusted.resource.org/no-solicit/ has the xml source and the html rendition. In the xml, I use the proper utf-8, which shows up in full glory in the html. For the ascii version, I concur with Randy's opinion that it makes the most sense to sacrifice the accents, a service that xml2rfc does very effectively. My apologies to French speakers (and, of course, my repeated apologies to any citizens of Freedonia as well). A very simple solution would be to write the documents in French :-) jfc ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: 'Labels in Subject Headers Considered Ineffective At Best' to Informational RFC
The document does not discuss the type of mailing list subject labels that you're referring to. I'm arguing that a better title of the document would be Legislated Labels in Email Subject Headers Considered Ineffective At Best Tony Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Carl Malamud wrote: Hi Brian - I read the first draft of this document, and wondered: Does this propose to change IETF behavior on list management, so that the name of the list (usually same as working group) is not put in the Subject: using the feature of mailman that does this? ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: 'Labels in Subject Headers Considered Ineffective At Best' to Informational RFC
> Hi - > > http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt says: > > "Internet-Drafts must be in ASCII. No 8bit chars are currently allowed. > If you need to include codepoints, a suggestion might be to use the > unicode convention: U+, where X is a hexadecimal digit." > > So, for the quotes, if retaining the accent marks is really more important > than intelligibility, "Francaise" would become "FranU+00E7aise". I'd ask > a native speaker of French which would be preferable, but I strongly suspect > that they'd find the ASCII mis-spelling less distasteful. http://trusted.resource.org/no-solicit/ has the xml source and the html rendition. In the xml, I use the proper utf-8, which shows up in full glory in the html. For the ascii version, I concur with Randy's opinion that it makes the most sense to sacrifice the accents, a service that xml2rfc does very effectively. My apologies to French speakers (and, of course, my repeated apologies to any citizens of Freedonia as well). Regards, Carl ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: 'Labels in Subject Headers Considered Ineffective At Best' to Informational RFC
Hi - http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt says: "Internet-Drafts must be in ASCII. No 8bit chars are currently allowed. If you need to include codepoints, a suggestion might be to use the unicode convention: U+, where X is a hexadecimal digit." So, for the quotes, if retaining the accent marks is really more important than intelligibility, "Francaise" would become "FranU+00E7aise". I'd ask a native speaker of French which would be preferable, but I strongly suspect that they'd find the ASCII mis-spelling less distasteful. Randy > From: "Carl Malamud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Alain Durand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: ; > Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 7:00 AM > Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Labels in Subject Headers Considered Ineffective At > Best' to Informational RFC > > Merci bien pour votre suggestions ... JSPF (Je suis pas francais). :)) > > Regards, > > Carl > > [ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ] > > This is an interesting proposal, however I would suggest that > > the grammatical mistakes relative to the french language > > and the cultural references be fixed. > > > > Suggestions: > > > > s/The Ambassadeur-General du France/L'Ambassadeur de France/ > > s/Le Academie Francais/L'Acad?mie Fran?aise/ > > s/Pate-du-Cochon-Degoutant-a-la-Facon-Horme/Fromage-qui-pue/ > > s/courriel/m?l/ (courriel was suggested by Qu?bec, not France, as > > far as I know) > > > > I would also suggest the author to use a standard way to represent the > > above non US-ASCII > > characters in the RFC ;-) > > > > - Alain. > > > > > > ___ > > Ietf mailing list > > Ietf@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > > ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: 'Labels in Subject Headers Considered Ineffective At Best' to Informational RFC
Hi Brian - > I read the first draft of this document, and wondered: > Does this propose to change IETF behavior on list management, so that the > name of the list (usually same as working group) is not put in the Subject: > using the feature of mailman that does this? > That isn't the specific purpose of this draft: it argues that "labels" such as "ADV:" are not good in the subject line. There is another draft which argues against the use of mailing list tags in the subject header and, my personal opinion, is that document should also be published as an RFC. See draft-koch-subject-tags-considered-00 for more details. > However, until we get the latter two accomplished, I want the list manager > to mark the Subject: with the name of the list. > That's why I'm not specifically dealing with that issue. > So, I ask that the author of the draft state his intentions with respect to > IETF list management, and that such an intention form part of the > consideration of the IETF on what to do with the draft. No, that is not the intention of this draft. I am dealing specifically with policy-mandated subject line labelling. Regards, Carl ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Last Call: 'Labels in Subject Headers Considered Ineffective At Best' to Informational RFC
I read the first draft of this document, and wondered: Does this propose to change IETF behavior on list management, so that the name of the list (usually same as working group) is not put in the Subject: using the feature of mailman that does this? When it was just a draft, it was just speculation. Now that the IESG is considering this draft, I want to ask: Is that what you have in mind? I think having the IETF list traffic have the solicitation class keyword marked appropriately is a good idea. I think having every email program on the planet become capable of filtering on this keyword is a good idea. I think having every email program on the planet become capable of displaying this field when it is not empty has some value, but I'm not sure what the tradeoffs are when the display is small, as on a PDA or mobile phone. However, until we get the latter two accomplished, I want the list manager to mark the Subject: with the name of the list. I don't know about you, but what I have today (very popular email program from a gigantic company and very cool cellphone/PDA combo thingy that works pretty darn nice for email) WILL NOT WORK WELL FOR ME if Subject is not marked. One does not have filters, and does not have a way to display an arbitrary header field. One has filters, but I don't see a filter mechanism for "Solicitation Class", and I don't see that key word in the fields I can display, although there appears to be a way to define your own field so maybe that would work. Dunno, but unless it works at least as well as marking Subject, I don't want to get rid of that feature. So, I ask that the author of the draft state his intentions with respect to IETF list management, and that such an intention form part of the consideration of the IETF on what to do with the draft. Brian > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:ietf-announce- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of The IESG > Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 9:35 AM > To: IETF-Announce > Subject: Last Call: 'Labels in Subject Headers Considered Ineffective At > Best' to Informational RFC > > The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider > the > following document: > > - 'Labels in Subject Headers Considered Ineffective At Best ' > as an Informational RFC > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > final comments on this action. Please send any comments to the > iesg@ietf.org or ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2005-03-22. > > The file can be obtained via > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-malamud-subject-line-02.txt > > > ___ > IETF-Announce mailing list > IETF-Announce@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce > ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: 'Labels in Subject Headers Considered Ineffective At Best' to Informational RFC
On 24 Feb 2005, at 10:00, Carl Malamud wrote: Merci bien pour votre suggestions ... JSPF (Je suis pas francais). :)) Tiny grammatical nits in the last paragraph of section 5: - In summary, for senders and receivers of email, use of the - "No-Solicit:" mechanism would be simply to understand and use. For - policy makers, it would be extremely simply to specify the format and + In summary, for senders and receivers of email, the + "No-Solicit:" mechanism would be simple to understand and use. For + policy makers, it would be extremely simple to specify the format and placement of the solicitation class keyword. (Needless to say, the issue of how to define what classes of messages are subject to such a requirement and how to enforce it are beyond the scope of this discussion.) Joe ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: 'Labels in Subject Headers Considered Ineffective At Best' to Informational RFC
Merci bien pour votre suggestions ... JSPF (Je suis pas francais). :)) Regards, Carl [ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ] > This is an interesting proposal, however I would suggest that > the grammatical mistakes relative to the french language > and the cultural references be fixed. > > Suggestions: > > s/The Ambassadeur-General du France/L'Ambassadeur de France/ > s/Le Academie Francais/L'Acad?mie Fran?aise/ > s/Pate-du-Cochon-Degoutant-a-la-Facon-Horme/Fromage-qui-pue/ > s/courriel/m?l/ (courriel was suggested by Qu?bec, not France, as > far as I know) > > I would also suggest the author to use a standard way to represent the > above non US-ASCII > characters in the RFC ;-) > > - Alain. > > > ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
