Hi Florian,
At 00:35 13-03-10, Florian Weimer wrote:
I've come across a RFC which basically says, in order to do X safely,
perform checks Y before you do X. It turns out that it's possible to
evade those checks. What should I do about it? I've already
contacted the author, and he says that no
--On Saturday, March 13, 2010 07:51 -0700 Cullen Jennings
flu...@cisco.com wrote:
I just got abused by someone reading the IESG web pages and
pointing out dates like 2010-01-02 , are confusing. Is there a
better way to do dates that we should be using on the ietf.org
web pages?
First of
I think the ISO standard is fine. Multi-letter month abbreviations are
probably OK but are a little different in different languages. Lets
stick with 2010-01-02.
Thanks,
Donald
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com wrote:
Cullen Jennings allegedly wrote on 03/13/2010
On 13.03.2010 15:51, Cullen Jennings wrote:
I just got abused by someone reading the IESG web pages and pointing out dates
like 2010-01-02 , are confusing. Is there a better way to do dates that we
should be using on the ietf.org web pages?
A better way than the ISO format? I don't think so.
On Mar 13, 2010, at 9:51 AM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
I just got abused by someone reading the IESG web pages and pointing
out dates like 2010-01-02 , are confusing. Is there a better way to
do dates that we should be using on the ietf.org web pages?
I would disagree. This follows an
Cullen Jennings allegedly wrote on 03/13/2010 09:51 EST:
I just got abused by someone reading the IESG web pages and pointing out
dates like 2010-01-02 , are confusing. Is there a better way to do dates that
we should be using on the ietf.org web pages?
2010-JAN-02
ISO not withstanding, its still confusing if only because other cultures use
yyddmm. If the IETF website used something like ISO-2010-01-02 maybe.
This format is less confusing: 02jan2010
--bill
On 13March2010Saturday, at 7:06, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Mar 13, 2010, at 9:51 AM,
On 2010.03.13. 15:51, Cullen Jennings wrote:
I just got abused by someone reading the IESG web pages and pointing out
dates like 2010-01-02 , are confusing. Is there a better way to do dates
that we should be using on the ietf.org web pages?
IMO ISO8601 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601)
I just got abused by someone reading the IESG web pages and pointing out dates
like 2010-01-02 , are confusing. Is there a better way to do dates that we
should be using on the ietf.org web pages?
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
On 13.03.2010 16:13, bill manning wrote:
ISO not withstanding, its still confusing if only because other cultures use
yyddmm. If the IETF website used something like ISO-2010-01-02 maybe.
This format is less confusing: 02jan2010
As far as I recall -MM-DD was specifically chosen because
Cullen Jennings writes:
I just got abused by someone reading the IESG web pages and pointing
out dates like 2010-01-02 , are confusing. Is there a better way to
do dates that we should be using on the ietf.org web pages?
Those are RFC 3339 dates. Tell him to write a draft-rfc3339bis if he's
bill manning bmanning at ISI dot EDU wrote:
ISO not withstanding, its still confusing if only because other
cultures use yyddmm.
Which cultures are those?
--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s
On Sat, 13 Mar 2010, John C Klensin wrote:
there really is an international standard that specifies dates in strict
little-endian order (e.g., MMDD)
That's big endian :-)
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finch d...@dotat.at http://dotat.at/
GERMAN BIGHT HUMBER: SOUTHWEST 5 TO 7. MODERATE OR ROUGH.
Since we are destined to keep pretending that character sets and
document formats are one and the same...
Martin Rex mrex at sap dot com wrote:
all unicode codepoints from their glyphs (and a number of them can
not be distinguished by their glyphs), and even worse, most
machines/environments
On Mar 13, 2010, at 10:29 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
On Sat, 13 Mar 2010, John C Klensin wrote:
there really is an international standard that specifies dates in strict
little-endian order (e.g., MMDD)
That's big endian :-)
And it's stored in octets, not bytes (UTF-8 with a lang tag of
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 05:13:41PM +0100,
Arnt Gulbrandsen a...@gulbrandsen.priv.no wrote
a message of 17 lines which said:
Those are RFC 3339 dates.
It took thirteen messages for someone to notice that there is an IETF
standard for dates and that the IETF uses it on its own Web
pages...
Masataka Ohta mohta at necom830 dot hpcl dot titech dot ac dot jp
wrote:
The problem with email is people use html way too much. TXT -
HTML - TXT does not work reliable. Too many one way
transformations.
That's enough to deny the following statement of Doug Ewell;
You could have HTML or
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 10:06:46AM -0500,
Marshall Eubanks t...@americafree.tv wrote
a message of 61 lines which said:
This follows an ISO standard, ISO 8601,
Sections 5.5 of RFC 3339 explain very well why you should not use ISO
8601 but its subset of RFC 3339.
and also happens to sort
On 13.03.2010 19:30, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 10:06:46AM -0500,
Marshall Eubankst...@americafree.tv wrote
a message of 61 lines which said:
This follows an ISO standard, ISO 8601,
Sections 5.5 of RFC 3339 explain very well why you should not use ISO
8601 but
For me, the best reason to keep dates in the format of:
MMDD
is that if you name your files in this way, when you do a directory list, files
get sorted in alphabetical order
So if only for this reason, this is why its the ONLY convention I will ever
use, even if I decide to learn a third
On Sat, 13 Mar 2010, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 13.03.2010 19:30, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
Sections 5.5 of RFC 3339 explain very well why you should not use ISO
8601 but its subset of RFC 3339.
[because RFC 3339 is simpler]
On the other hand, RFC 3339 refers to an outdated version of ISO
(from digest)
ISO not withstanding, its still confusing if only because other
cultures use yyddmm. If the IETF website used something like ISO-2010-01-02
maybe.
Actually, for culturally-formatted date strings, cultures that prefer day-month
order typically put the year at the trailing
These technical answers are all great for use in Internet protocols
[3339] but the scope of the question is web pages destined for humans to
read and understand ... and some humans don't understand them. You
could justify what's there now and ignore their problem, or (if your
goal is
On Mar 13, 2010, at 10:47 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 13.03.2010 16:13, bill manning wrote:
ISO not withstanding, its still confusing if only because other
cultures use
yyddmm. If the IETF website used something like ISO-2010-01-02
maybe.
This format is less confusing: 02jan2010
As
In message 3e11e3d6-354f-4455-873d-c2ab68158...@americafree.tv, Marshall Euba
nks writes:
On Mar 13, 2010, at 10:47 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 13.03.2010 16:13, bill manning wrote:
ISO not withstanding, its still confusing if only because other
cultures use
yyddmm. If the IETF
On Mar 13, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 10:06:46AM -0500,
Marshall Eubanks t...@americafree.tv wrote
a message of 61 lines which said:
This follows an ISO standard, ISO 8601,
Sections 5.5 of RFC 3339 explain very well why you should not use ISO
8601
Doug Ewell wrote:
came to be twisted by Ohta-san so imaginatively.
I'm simply realistic.
[3] Here is an example of PDF-A that uses nothing but ASCII characters:
http://www.ewellic.org/ascii-only.pdf
I'm afraid the PDF file contains non-ASCII character of circled R in
metadata for
In message 4b9c0a6a.1010...@gmail.com, Scott Brim writes:
These technical answers are all great for use in Internet protocols
[3339] but the scope of the question is web pages destined for humans to
read and understand ... and some humans don't understand them. You
could justify what's there
John Klensin noted:
While it doesn't change the conclusion, I've actually see many
uses of ydm in the wild. I haven't taken the time to try to
find out, but I've assumed that was the reason why the current
version of ISO 8601 moved to one delimiter and it is hyphen
from the permissiveness
On 03/13/2010 02:24 PM, Ofer Inbar wrote:
Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com wrote:
These technical answers are all great for use in Internet protocols
[3339] but the scope of the question is web pages destined for humans to
read and understand ... and some humans don't understand them. You
Masataka Ohta mohta at necom830 dot hpcl dot titech dot ac dot jp
wrote:
[3] Here is an example of PDF-A that uses nothing but ASCII
characters:
http://www.ewellic.org/ascii-only.pdf
I'm afraid the PDF file contains non-ASCII character of circled R in
metadata for pdf:Creator.
Thank you
John Klensin noted:
... It was only the sweeping
statement to which I was taking exception.
Sweeping generalizations in regard to language or culture are always wrong.
~Addison
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
On 2010-03-14 10:58, Scott Brim wrote:
These technical answers are all great for use in Internet protocols
[3339] but the scope of the question is web pages destined for humans to
read and understand ... and some humans don't understand them. You
could justify what's there now and ignore
bill == bill manning bmann...@isi.edu writes:
bill ISO not withstanding, its still confusing if only because
bill other cultures use yyddmm. If the IETF website used something
bill like ISO-2010-01-02 maybe.
Only confusing for americas.
The rest of us are confused by america
[3] Here is an example of PDF-A that uses nothing but ASCII
characters:
http://www.ewellic.org/ascii-only.pdf
I've replaced this with another PDF file created by a program (Acrobat
Distiller 6.0.1) whose name, as displayed in the Properties dialog,
doesn't include a non-ASCII symbol.
Of
Doug Ewell wrote:
I'm afraid the PDF file contains non-ASCII character of circled R in
metadata for pdf:Creator.
Thank you for a convincing demonstration to deny yourself.
Metadata? Is that what we're talking about?
Yes.
PDF is a binary format and there are lots of other bytes in
John,
the best solution is a short note on
relevant pages (perhaps even in the footer of every page) that
says, e.g., In accordance with International Standards, all
dates on IETF web pages are either spelled out in full or in ISO
8601 format, i.e., -MM-DD. It is not trying to swap out
one
Running code, actual interest to deploy, and an incremental deployment
model would probably take this matter further than the annual religious
argument :-)
Those who feel the pain should build/select tools and demonstrate that
(a) they can produce high-quality PDF/A, (b) that it provides
38 matches
Mail list logo
