On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 17:58:52 -0500 Gray, Eric wrote:
-- Robert Sayre
--
-- I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have
-- the time.
I love this quote. Too bad it's not attributed. Did you make
it up yourself? I'd like to use it sometime...
(never saw an answer)
The
Randy.Dunlap wrote:
-- I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have
-- the time.
I love this quote. Too bad it's not attributed. Did you make
it up yourself? I'd like to use it sometime...
(never saw an answer)
The internet shows a few attributions to some Mark Twain
-- Forwarded message --From: Eduardo Mendez [EMAIL PROTECTED]Date: 10-dic-2005 11:43
Subject: Need for a rebuild [was I-D file formats and internationalization]To: Gray, Eric [EMAIL PROTECTED]2005/12/5, Gray, Eric
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Ted,-- The IETF does not make any effort
Yaakov Stein wrote:
Character sets are important, but there is more.
I have had bad experiences with right-to-left writing
in environments not specifically designed to handle it.
And the worst case is embedding of left-to-right expressions
inside right-to-left text (or vice versa).
The
--On mandag, desember 05, 2005 09:17:08 -0500 Marshall Eubanks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You may have sent it in UTF-8, but arrived here as ASCII :
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
^
ASCII? -+
And your
Hello Harald;
On Dec 6, 2005, at 11:37 AM, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On mandag, desember 05, 2005 09:17:08 -0500 Marshall Eubanks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You may have sent it in UTF-8, but arrived here as ASCII :
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Even this seems to go back and forth OK. Of course, if it
doesn't, it might be hard to reconstruct...
Дов�й но пров�й !
...test it. g Seriously, nobody but me uses a pre-UTF-8 MUA.
Bye, Frank
On Dec 6, 2005, at 11:08 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Довяй но провяй !
Dont know what it means but it looks great to me...:-)
...test it. g Seriously, nobody but me uses a pre-UTF-8 MUA.
Bye, Frank
happy santa Santa Claus eve
marc
Douglas Otis wrote:
this could also mean utilizing graphical characters to create
clean lines, boxes, and borders. This could be a matter of
the character-repertoire going beyond ASCII in conjunction
with a drawing application. This approach should permit a
simple translation back into
On Dec 6, 2005, at 2:27 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Douglas Otis wrote:
this could also mean utilizing graphical characters to create
clean lines, boxes, and borders. This could be a matter of the
character-repertoire going beyond ASCII in conjunction with a
drawing application. This
Character sets are important, but there is more.
I have had bad experiences with right-to-left writing
in environments not specifically designed to handle it.
And the worst case is embedding of left-to-right expressions
inside right-to-left text (or vice versa).
האם עברית עוברת נכון ?
Y(J)S
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
The fact that Brian is English and lives in Zurich is irrelevant.
As a matter of fact I don't live in Zürich; I live near Genève.
Of course this matters. The problem is that it's not quite as
straightforward as people think. I'm attempting to send this
in UTF-8;
You may have sent it in UTF-8, but arrived here as ASCII :
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by
mtagate3.uk.ibm.com id
jB5E0WQg115170
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
You may have sent it in UTF-8, but arrived here as ASCII :
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by
mtagate3.uk.ibm.com id
jB5E0WQg115170
One interesting thing is that the umlaut on the U in Zurich and
the accent grave in Geneva came though, and came back as well (on the
response to my response). They look fine,
and are coded as Zürich; Genève
So, if your use of UTF-8 was intended to display that, I think that
(for me, OS
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- On Behalf Of Ted Faber
-- Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 11:25 PM
-- To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
-- Cc: ietf@ietf.org
-- Subject: Re: I-D file formats and internationalization
--
-- ___
-- Ietf mailing list
Hi Yaakov,
on 2005-12-04 08:17 Yaakov Stein said the following:
Why should any electronic format be normative?
The normative version should be the hardcopy print-out,
and any editing tool that can produce a precisely reproducible print-out
should be allowed.
This should hold for
on 2005-12-04 08:52 Doug Ewell said the following:
Perhaps it's just me, but I find it bizarre that the question of
limiting RFC text to ASCII vs. UTF-8 is being conflated with the
question of limiting RFC illustrations to ASCII art vs. other graphic
formats. I don't think the two have
On Sun, 2005-12-04 at 12:22 +0100, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
on 2005-12-04 08:52 Doug Ewell said the following:
Perhaps it's just me, but I find it bizarre that the question of
limiting RFC text to ASCII vs. UTF-8 is being conflated with the
question of limiting RFC illustrations to ASCII
At 11:52 PM -0800 12/3/05, Doug Ewell wrote:
Perhaps it's just me, but I find it bizarre that the question of
limiting RFC text to ASCII vs. UTF-8 is being conflated with the
question of limiting RFC illustrations to ASCII art vs. other
graphic formats. I don't think the two have anything
At 05:24 03/12/2005, Ted Faber wrote:
IETF standards documents reflect the consensus of the IETF
participants at the time of submission to the publication
queue. People who believe an IETF standards document represents
other things are misinformed.
Ted,
I am perfectly confortable with this.
Now, the toughest question here is which presentation format should be
normative.
Why should any electronic format be normative?
The normative version should be the hardcopy print-out,
and any editing tool that can produce a precisely reproducible print-out
should be allowed.
This should
Perhaps it's just me, but I find it bizarre that the question of
limiting RFC text to ASCII vs. UTF-8 is being conflated with the
question of limiting RFC illustrations to ASCII art vs. other graphic
formats. I don't think the two have anything important in common.
--
Doug Ewell
Fullerton,
Hi Tim,
on 2005-12-02 02:44 Tim Bray said the following:
[snip]
I will now shut up. It is clearly the case that there is tremendous
resistance within the IETF to leaving their comfy ASCII enclave.
Following the debate from the sideline till now, it's clear to me that
there are at least a
A fundamental problem, among many, of Unicode is that, most
people can't recognize most of local characters.
With the internationalized context of IETF, it is prohibitively
impolite to spell names of people in a way not recognizable
by others.
Thus, for the internationalization, names of people
Keith Moore wrote:
personally I find most of the HTML versions of RFCs quite
annoying to read because of distracting embellishments.
+1 The rfcmarkup version based on the plain text is nice,
e.g. http://tools.ietf.org/html/3834#section-4 It also
supports e.g.
At 02:44 02/12/2005, Tim Bray wrote:
On Dec 1, 2005, at 3:16 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
And I will freely admit that I find the notion that a group of people
designing global infrastructure think it's OK to use ASCII so morally
and and aesthetically offensive that it probably interferes with my
Paul Hoffman wrote:
Listing an author as Patrik Fauml;ltstrouml;m is
not readable.
From my POV it's better than F=84lttr=94m (858 QP) or
F=E4ltstr=F6m (1252 QP) or F=C3=A4ltstr=C3=B6m (UTF-8 QP).
With your proposal I'd see Fältström (intentionally
raw UTF-8 encoded in the Latin-1 subset of
JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
To do so this group uses the English
language for its work is because of its utility for working in a global
context.. This is an old religion. ASCII is part of it. From the very
beginning.
I'm tired of this kind of fallacy.
ASCII is not English.
A charset is
Robert Sayre wrote:
the current format is not easy to print with proper
pagination on Microsoft Windows
Last time I tested `dir prn` on a W2K box it worked,
why would that be different for `type rfc4567.txt prn` ?
Hmm. What is the LCD? Is it NetBSD circa 1993? Is it a
PDP-11?
How about a
At 13:32 02/12/2005, Masataka Ohta wrote:
JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
To do so this group uses the English
language for its work is because of its utility for working in a global
context.. This is an old religion. ASCII is part of it. From the very
beginning.
I'm tired of this kind of
Frank Ellermann wrote:
Paul Hoffman wrote:
Listing an author as Patrik Fauml;ltstrouml;m is
not readable.
From my POV it's better than F=84lttr=94m (858 QP) or
F=E4ltstr=F6m (1252 QP) or F=C3=A4ltstr=C3=B6m (UTF-8 QP).
With your proposal I'd see Fältström (intentionally
raw UTF-8 encoded
JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
English is tied to ASCII.
All the languages in the world is tied to ASCII too.
So?
This is one of its leading advantage: to support information
interchanges with the most limited charset.
ISO 646 IRV (Internatinal Reference Version) is defined by not
IETF but
Julian Reschke wrote:
those who still use operating systems with no builtin support
for UTF-8 are knowledgeable enough to run a text file - in
particular if it has a UTF BOM - through GNU recode.
A mandatory BOM for those I-Ds / RFCs actually using UTF-8 is
an idea for Paul's next draft.
From: Masataka Ohta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A fundamental problem .. of Unicode is that, most people can't
recognize most of local characters.
With the internationalized context of IETF, it is prohibitively
impolite to spell names of people in a way not recognizable by others.
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 03:44:35PM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
I don't think that the term 'authoritative' has much utility. The
version I want is the one most likely to be trustworthy.
The early church had a series of battles deciding which text should be
considered cannonical. And
From: Ted Faber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
That's competent rhetoric. It doesn't address the actual
state of affairs, but it reads well and is inflammatory. Nice work.
Its an effective means of making a point in a memorable fashion.
What we are arguing for here is that the IETF should
Phillip Hallam-Baker writes...
Ah here you make the mistake of thinking that the IETF community is
the
Internet community. Perhaps forty years ago, but certainly not today.
The IETF does not make any effort to be representative of the Internet
community.
I beg to differ. I think the IETF
On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 11:57:43AM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
From: Ted Faber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RFCs have authoritative versions for a couple reasons. Some
are the result of the IETF consensus process and the exact
wording on which consensus was achieved is important
On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 18:29 -0800, Paul Hoffman wrote:
No escape mechanism is needed. Non-displayable characters are still
in the RFC, they simply can't be displayed by everyone (but they can
be displayed by many). This is infinitely simpler, and a much better
long-term solution, than an
On 11/30/05, Bob Braden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This issue has been brought up before and has been on our list of
things to worry about for at least two years. But we always run
aground on the following consideration: there is a substantial
constituency for have some least-common-denominator
On 11/30/05, Jeroen Massar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can of course publish drafts and RFC's as XML which supports any
character set you want.
AFAIK, RFC2026 still applies:
the ASCII text version is the definitive reference
One can always start translating RFC's:
This is true. But it has
At 12:15 AM -0800 12/1/05, Douglas Otis wrote:
Why do you think there is a problem using all possible characters in an
ID, but not in an RFC?
I don't. I simply believe that, given the way the IETF deals with
process changes, it is easier to change one process at a time.
Why would it be
On Dec 1, 2005, at 8:34 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
The suggestion of the HTML escape would ensure readability.
Fully disagree. Listing an author as Patrik Fauml;ltstrouml;m is
not readable.
The suggestion was for an alternate field in the XML input file to
contain non-ASCII versions of
On Nov 30, 2005, at 2:54 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
As Bob said raw UTF-8
characters won't fly with `cat rfc4567 /dev/lpt1` and other
simple uses of RFCs.
1. I wonder what proportion of the population prints things this way?
2. If the file is correctly encoded in UTF-8 and the above doesn't
On Nov 30, 2005, at 2:54 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
As Bob said raw UTF-8
characters won't fly with `cat rfc4567 /dev/lpt1` and other
simple uses of RFCs.
1. I wonder what proportion of the population prints things this way?
2. If the file is correctly encoded in UTF-8 and the above
On Dec 1, 2005, at 12:16 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
Also, the vast majority of printers in use don't natively support
printing of utf-8, thus forcing users to layer each of their computer
systems with more and more buggy cruft just to do simple tasks like
printing plain text. Perhaps those are
On Dec 1, 2005, at 12:16 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
Also, the vast majority of printers in use don't natively support
printing of utf-8, thus forcing users to layer each of their computer
systems with more and more buggy cruft just to do simple tasks like
printing plain text. Perhaps those
Behalf Of Tim Bray
Unfortunately,
most web browsers fail to preserve page breaks (FF characters) when
printing flat text files, which makes the resulting
documents hard to
read.
Turn this around; when printing HTML, the browser inserts
appropriate page breaks depending on the
Once people started to use foliation for citations they started to see
the disadvantages. Editions of the bible were particularly problematic
once people started attempting to cross reference translations back to
the original text. This was a particular problem with the old testament
as some
On 12/1/05, Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On a point of information, most of the references I see in existing RFCs
are to sections in any case.
I suspect this is because almost everyone refers to an HTML version in
informal communication. But, I actually agree with Keith that
-D file formats and internationalization
--
-- On 12/1/05, Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--
-- On a point of information, most of the references I see
-- in existing RFCs are to sections in any case.
--
-- I suspect this is because almost everyone refers to an HTML
-- version
-Original Message-
From: Robert Sayre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 5:38 PM
To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Cc: Tim Bray; Keith Moore; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: I-D file formats and internationalization
On 12/1/05, Hallam-Baker
On 12/1/05, Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On a point of information, most of the references I see in existing RFCs
are to sections in any case.
I suspect this is because almost everyone refers to an HTML version in
informal communication. But, I actually agree with
Why do you consider the TXT version to be authoritative if as you admit
the HTML version is the one that is read by reviewers and readers?
I don't think that's actually true. The TXT versions are not only
authoritative, they're also the ones available from official sources.
And personally I
-- Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Keith Moore; Tim Bray; ietf@ietf.org
-- Subject: RE: I-D file formats and internationalization
--
--
--
-- -Original Message-
-- From: Robert Sayre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 5:38 PM
-- To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
-- Cc: Tim
(distro trimmed -- I assume everyone participating in this
interminable discussion is on the IETF list)
--On Thursday, 01 December, 2005 17:38 -0500 Robert Sayre
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/1/05, Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On a point of information, most of the
Title: RE: I-D file formats and internationalization
I don't think that the term 'authoritative' has much utility. The version I want is the one most likely to be trustworthy.
The early church had a series of battles deciding which text should be considered cannonical. And pretty unpleasant
On Dec 1, 2005, at 3:16 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
the
the ability to read and print UTF-8 in the field is still
significantly
worse than the ability to read and print ASCII.
That assertion could use a little empirical backing. Empirically,
there are people who find the ASCII versions
I've noticed that the recent debate on the ASCII text format has often
conflated formatting of artwork and Unicode support. I think finding a
non-text artwork format that has free uniform authoring (including
diffs) and viewer support will be impossible for the next 5-10 years.
An XML equivalent
Robert,
This is a good point. It even applies to the IETF secretariat. It used to
be impossible to register with your real name if it contained non-ASCII
characters. I think that has changed, I recall having Seen Olafur
Gudmundson's badge with the real Icelandic curly d (or whatever it is
It was sad that people can accept this.
To degrade the name of their friends.
In every country this is insulting.
It is good news you can type better.
But this has not changed in RFC.
If in the thanks section you hurt a name.
The thanked person, will not be happy.
Eduardo Mendez
2005/11/30,
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Robert Sayre
Unicode support is a different matter. I find the current
IETF policy to be incredibly bigoted. Many RFCs and I-Ds are
currently forced to misspell the names of authors and
contributors, which doesn't seem
Ole Jacobsen writes...
This is a good point. It even applies to the IETF secretariat. It used
to
be impossible to register with your real name if it contained
non-ASCII
characters. I think that has changed, I recall having Seen Olafur
Gudmundson's badge with the real Icelandic curly d (or
Phillip:
I am currently at the W3C AC meeting. They are also involved in the
ongoing 'internet governance' discussions but the W3C is involved a
participant in the discussions while the IETF is one of the topics of
the discussions. Needless to say it is better to be a participant than
the
For that matter, most Americans don't speak English
Mark
On Nov 30, 2005, at 10:43 AM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Robert Sayre
Unicode support is a different matter. I find the current
IETF policy to be incredibly bigoted.
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
SNIP previous posters text
It might seem odd to people whose names do fit in ASCII but there are a
lot of people who care about this type of issue.
You can of course publish drafts and RFC's as XML which supports any
character set you want.
SNIP
The IETF has had
Robert Sayre wrote:
I'm sure someone has already suggested this approach,
but I'll add my voice to the chorus.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hoffman-utf8-rfcs
I really don't like this approach for various reasons.
Bye, Frank
On Nov 30, 2005, at 12:41 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Robert Sayre wrote:
I'm sure someone has already suggested this approach,
but I'll add my voice to the chorus.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hoffman-utf8-rfcs
I really don't like this approach for various reasons.
Rather than
*
* Unicode support is a different matter. I find the current
* IETF policy to be incredibly bigoted. Many RFCs and I-Ds are
* currently forced to misspell the names of authors and
* contributors, which doesn't seem like correct attribution to
* me. So, I recommend that
At 1:54 PM -0800 11/30/05, Douglas Otis wrote:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hoffman-utf8-rfcs
Rather than opening RFCs to text utilizing any character-set
anywhere, as this draft suggests,
That is not what the RFC suggests at all. The character set is
Unicode. The encoding is UTF-8.
Douglas Otis wrote:
there could be alternative UTF fields for an author's name
and reference titles,
For the new 3066bis language tags registry we adopted the
known #x12345; notation for u+012345. As Bob said raw UTF-8
characters won't fly with `cat rfc4567 /dev/lpt1` and other
simple uses
On Nov 30, 2005, at 2:23 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 1:54 PM -0800 11/30/05, Douglas Otis wrote:
Rather than opening RFCs to text utilizing any character-set
anywhere, as this draft suggests,
That is not what the RFC suggests at all. The character set is
Unicode. The encoding is UTF-8.
At 5:59 PM -0800 11/30/05, Douglas Otis wrote:
On Nov 30, 2005, at 2:23 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 1:54 PM -0800 11/30/05, Douglas Otis wrote:
Rather than opening RFCs to text utilizing any character-set
anywhere, as this draft suggests,
That is not what the RFC suggests at all. The
Robert Sayre wrote:
Unicode support is a different matter. I find the current IETF policy
to be incredibly bigoted. Many RFCs and I-Ds are currently forced to
misspell the names of authors and contributors, which doesn't seem
like correct attribution to me.
It is your stupidity that you
On 11/30/05, Masataka Ohta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Robert Sayre wrote:
Unicode support is a different matter. I find the current IETF policy
to be incredibly bigoted. Many RFCs and I-Ds are currently forced to
misspell the names of authors and contributors, which doesn't seem
like
76 matches
Mail list logo
