On Fri Mar 19 22:14:18 2010, Randy Presuhn wrote:
Modern English spellings, please?
Those are modern English, actually. Just because the Americans drop
the accents doesn't mean other English writers do. Of course,
nobody's suggesting that we should use diacriticals in RFC prose.
I'd also
Donald Eastlake wrote:
Martin Rex m...@sap.com wrote:
And if we should change anything about the Author's Address section,
then it would be to replace the contact information with URLs
to an IETF web server where each author can update/maintain his
contact information.
No. I have
On 20.03.2010 00:15, Martin Rex wrote:
...
I'm doing a significant part of my work, including EMail,
in 8-bit xterm using iso-latin-1 fonts and a Mail User Agent
that ignores code pages.
...
How is that relevant?
Out of curiosity, I tried to look at a couple of Web Sites today
with a
And if we should change anything about the Author's Address section,
then it would be to replace the contact information with URLs
to an IETF web server where each author can update/maintain his
contact information.
If HTML is used to provide that information, then authors could provide
I
suggest that anyone who wants to drag our document formats kicking and
screaming into the third millennium might share their résumé with this
list or, even better, arrange a meeting at IETF 77. Shall we schedule a
soirée at the Anaheim Hilton's Café Del Sol?
I gather that this soirée will
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 5:33 PM, Martin Rex m...@sap.com wrote:
...
And if we should change anything about the Author's Address section,
then it would be to replace the contact information with URLs
to an IETF web server where each author can update/maintain his
contact information.
No.
So you would argue that RFCs should normally be used in paper form? This is
the only way I can see to avoid requiring internet access.
This idea seems sane to me. Given the current policy, the documents are
already not usable on the hundreds of millions of net-capable mobile
devices; a high
+1
Bob Braden
Donald Eastlake wrote:
No. I have no problem with *supplementing* it with such a URL but any author
listed on the front page should have an email address, a postal address, and
a telephone number listed in the RFC. The model for an RFC is that of a
permanent book, not an
It sometimes bugs me that spelling my name in Latin letters like in this email,
does not give English speakers enough information to pronounce my name
correctly.
In fact, I don't think there's any sequence of Latin letters that will do it.
Still, I don't think putting יואב ניר in the author
Without paper, I don't see the point of pagination.
On Mar 20, 2010, at 11:28 AM, Tim Bray wrote:
So you would argue that RFCs should normally be used in paper form? This is the
only way I can see to avoid requiring internet access.
This idea seems sane to me. Given the current policy, the
On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Tim Bray tb...@textuality.com wrote:
So you would argue that RFCs should normally be used in paper form? This is
the only way I can see to avoid requiring internet access.
No, I argue as I said, not the words you wish to put in my mouth.
The model for an RFC
On 19 mrt 2010, at 5:05, John Levine wrote:
xml2rfc does a pretty good job of capturing what needs to be in an
RFC, so that is the strawman I would start from.
The virtues (or lack thereof) of xml2rfc are a separate discussion. The
question isn't how we generate the normative output, but what
On Fri Mar 19 10:29:04 2010, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 19 mrt 2010, at 5:05, John Levine wrote:
xml2rfc does a pretty good job of capturing what needs to be in an
RFC, so that is the strawman I would start from.
The virtues (or lack thereof) of xml2rfc are a separate discussion.
The
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
1. I cannot print them correctly on either Windows or Mac.
2. I cannot view them at all on the mobile device
These two issues can easily be solved by using the PDF or HTML versions.
Simple plain ASCII text is just fine.
3. I cannot enter the name of an author
Ohta san,
Let me guess: You're not a big fan of IDNs either, right?
Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: o...@cisco.com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010, Masataka Ohta
At 04:02 19-03-10, Dave Cridland wrote:
The IAB made a clear statement that we need i18n support, yet over a
decade after RFC 2130 or RFC 2825, the RFCs themselves still have a
strict ASCII limitation. Sure, that wasn't mentioned at the time, but
does nobody else find this plain shameful?
As
On 3/19/2010 3:29 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 19 mrt 2010, at 5:05, John Levine wrote:
xml2rfc does a pretty good job of capturing what needs to be in an
RFC, so that is the strawman I would start from.
The virtues (or lack thereof) of xml2rfc are a separate discussion.
The
The virtues (or lack thereof) of xml2rfc are a separate discussion. The
question isn't how we generate the normative output, but what the normative
output should be.
Seems to me that this discussion has reached the point at which
running code is needed in order to get any further.
May I
On 19 mrt 2010, at 12:02, Dave Cridland wrote:
Why care about a normative output? You change the subject to talk about using
non-normative representations already, why care about a normative output *at
all*?
You have a point. But it's in the subject line...
Let's concentrate on a
Dave Cridland wrote:
The IAB made a clear statement that we need i18n support, yet over a
decade after RFC 2130 or RFC 2825, the RFCs themselves still have a
strict ASCII limitation. Sure, that wasn't mentioned at the time, but
does nobody else find this plain shameful?
You taking
On 3/19/10 3:33 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
Since we are writing RFCs in the _english_language_, so that they
can be consumed by the widest possible audience, _all_ text in them
ought to be written in the english language.
Your statement bespeaks a certain degree of naïveté, à la those whose
heads
Hi -
From: Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im
To: m...@sap.com
Cc: t...@att.com; iljit...@muada.com; tb...@textuality.com;
ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 2:56 PM
Subject: Re: Make HTML and PDF more prominent, was: Re: Why the normative
...
naïveté, Ã
...
façade
...
You have a pretty strong accent, I'm having severe difficulties
understanding your language:
Your statement bespeaks a certain degree of na=C3=AFvet=C3=A9, =C3=A0 la =
those whose
heads are planted firmly in the sand. When shall we strip away the mere
fa=C3=A7ade of global participation that
23 matches
Mail list logo
