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 norma
> 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 s
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
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 se
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 wrote:
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 autho
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
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 wha
