Actually, if you knew Morse code you would know that it is SOS, an
in-band signal consisting of ...---... not the letters S-O-S.
As far as being trapped in a building, any regular pattern of bangs is
going to be picked up and acted on.
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Jorge Amodio
Jorge Amodio wrote:
Hard to believe but Morse is still in use and required
for certain classes of radio operators.
For good reasons; in difficult conditions, Morse still delivers the
message when the voice has long stopped being recognizable. Morse would
be like ASCII: definitely not the
Michel Py wrote:
Jorge Amodio wrote:
Hard to believe but Morse is still in use and required
for certain classes of radio operators.
For good reasons; in difficult conditions, Morse still delivers the
message when the voice has long stopped being recognizable. Morse would
be like ASCII:
Masataka Ohta mohta at necom830 dot hpcl dot titech dot ac dot jp
wrote:
HTML is already too complex and unstable that there is no hope
that
UNSTABLE?
Is it still version 1.0?
The current version is 4.01, and it has been stable since 1999. The
next version, 5, is approaching Last Call,
Doug Ewell writes:
So Microsoft Word inserted a registered-trademark symbol into an
*internal properties field* of a PDF file whose *contents* were
claimed to be pure ASCII, and now it is claimed that this
demonstrates not only that the contents of a PDF file cannot be plain
ASCII, but also
Brian E Carpenter brian dot e dot carpenter at gmail dot com wrote:
Note that I am not arguing in favor of plain text as the IETF
standard. I just want to keep this part of the discussion real.
There is no requirement anywhere that plain-text files may contain
only ASCII characters.
That
On 16.03.2010 14:14, Doug Ewell wrote:
Brian E Carpenter brian dot e dot carpenter at gmail dot com wrote:
Note that I am not arguing in favor of plain text as the IETF
standard. I just want to keep this part of the discussion real. There
is no requirement anywhere that plain-text files may
On 3/16/2010 6:22 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
Speaking of which: did we ever *measure* the acceptance of
draft-hoffman-utf8-rfcs? As far as I recall, there was lots of support
for it.
There were a few different proposals. Some had support. Others probably
didn't.
What was missing was a
I agree, there did seem to be lots of support for it, including my own.
But I don't think anyone really wanted to stand up and act as the WG
Chair and declare concensus. After all, this is a basic infrastructure
item that spans the entire IETF+IRTF+IAB space. Who is in charge of
managing that
I would suggest that this topic is something the RFC Series Editor
(transitional or otherwise) would/should/could consider.
Ole
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:
Since there is nobody suggesting a modification of the document format
from 7 bit plaintext to UTF8 and since further it is clear that this
would satisfy neither camp, I fail to see the relevance for including
it.
Expressing surprise that such an option has not been considered is,
well
I have submitted HTML into that Web form.
And then what happened to it...?
That is the real complaint here. Most of us are now writing documents
in a process that uses XML for authoring and HTML for reviewing. Then
the result is taken and reduced to 1960s teletype.
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 12:22
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
What I find rather puzzling here is that most of the defenders of the
status quo are saying 'document format is really no big deal, why make
a fuss'.
?? I haven't seen anybody argue
+1
Since nobody was using teleprinters 500 years ago the introduction of
them here as a point of difference is ridiculous.
And the idea that HTML is any less stable than the hacks people have
developed to make non-ASCII characters work in ASCII is totally
absurd. We can reasonably expect that
No, your claim was a canard because it is a test that your preferred
document format cannot meet.
I do not need to have the evidence of 500 years of experience of using
HTML to be able to demonstrate that HTML will be readable in 1000
years time. The difficulty of deciphering HTML is remarkably
Well, I will just point out that the whole discussion was kicked off
by a gratuitous defense of the existing format.
As for the rejection of Paul's proposal, it is entirely logical to
reject a change that fails to go far enough. And your ability to block
change in the past is hardly a
I developed tools to convert RFC from/to mediawiki pages. As long as RFC
3935 obliges to use English ASCII, the simplest English ASCII format is the
best as it permits easy format conversion. The only real problem I meet is
the impossibility to use circles in figures.
jfc
2010/3/16 Julian Reschke
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.de wrote:
On 16.03.2010 14:14, Doug Ewell wrote:
Brian E Carpenter brian dot e dot carpenter at gmail dot com wrote:
Note that I am not arguing in favor of plain text as the IETF
standard. I just want to keep this part of the
On Mar 16, 2010, at 10:48 AM, Tony Hansen wrote:
I agree, there did seem to be lots of support for it, including my
own. But I don't think anyone really wanted to stand up and act as
the WG Chair and declare concensus. After all, this is a basic
infrastructure item that spans the entire
Circles are not impossible, just a pain:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5491#section-5.2.7
Likewise for normal distributions:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thomson-geopriv-uncertainty-04
On Mar 16, 2010, at 2:57 PM, JFC Morfin wrote:
I developed tools to convert RFC from/to mediawiki pages.
At 07:48 16-03-10, Tony Hansen wrote:
I agree, there did seem to be lots of support for it, including my
own. But I don't think anyone really wanted to stand up and act as
the WG Chair and declare concensus. After all, this is a basic
infrastructure item that spans the entire IETF+IRTF+IAB
On 3/16/10 6:22 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
Speaking of which: did we ever *measure* the acceptance of
draft-hoffman-utf8-rfcs? As far as I recall, there was lots of support
for it.
The draft expired at rev 5, but can be found at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hoffman-utf8-rfcs
-Doug
On 13 mrt 2010, at 21:54, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
So in the hope of finding consensus here, lets see what people's
position actually is
A) The format issue does not matter
B) The format issue matters a little to me and I prefer the
teleprinter format
C) The format issue matters a lot
Doug Ewell wrote:
Tools does not support restricted profile very well, as was
demonstrated by a circled 'R' character in a claimed-to-be-pure-ASCII
PDF.
FYI, your claim was:
: Here is an example of PDF-A that uses nothing but ASCII characters:
a PDF file whose *contents* were claimed to
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com wrote:
+1
Since nobody was using teleprinters 500 years ago the introduction of
them here as a point of difference is ridiculous.
And the idea that HTML is any less stable than the hacks people have
developed to make
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com wrote:
I have submitted HTML into that Web form.
And then what happened to it...?
That is the real complaint here. Most of us are now writing documents
in a process that uses XML for authoring and HTML for reviewing. Then
I'll say that I'm in category c: the format issue matters a lot to me
and I prefer the status quo.
Changing the format issue is difficult, people who want to change it
routinely ignore some of the issues, and neither side participates in a
constructive discussion.
The status quo is acceptable and
On Mar 16, 2010, at 5:59 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com
wrote:
+1
Since nobody was using teleprinters 500 years ago the introduction of
them here as a point of difference is ridiculous.
And the idea that HTML is any less stable
On Tue, 16 Mar 2010, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Mar 16, 2010, at 5:59 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
I'd love to see you trapped in a basement after an earthquake with
only a stick trying to remember how to tap S-O-S.
That's easy. Three shorts and three longs, repeat until the water covers
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 05:05:13PM -0700, David Morris wrote:
On Tue, 16 Mar 2010, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
I'd love to see you trapped in a basement after an earthquake with
only a stick trying to remember how to tap S-O-S.
That's easy. Three shorts and three longs, repeat until the
Phillip Hallam-Baker hallam at gmail dot com wrote:
I do not need to have the evidence of 500 years of experience of using
HTML to be able to demonstrate that HTML will be readable in 1000
years time. The difficulty of deciphering HTML is remarkably lower
than the difficulty of deciphering
Masataka Ohta mohta at necom830 dot hpcl dot titech dot ac dot jp
wrote:
FYI, your claim was:
: Here is an example of PDF-A that uses nothing but ASCII characters:
a PDF file whose *contents* were claimed to be pure ASCII
See above.
and now it is claimed that this demonstrates not only
On Tue, 2010-03-16, Doug Ewell wrote:
The other silly aspect of this will it be readable in 1000 years
argument is the supposition that the documents will sit, forgotten, for
1000 years until some future archaeologist digs them up and wants to
decipher them.
Obviously, if a newer and
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 07:58:17PM -0700, Bill McQuillan wrote:
I am haunted by the reports I've heard of NASA plaintively requesting
*anybody* to provide them with a 7-track tape machine to allow them to read
old data tapes from the 1960's and 1970's.
Not so much 1000 years as 40 years!
What I find rather puzzling here is that most of the defenders of the
status quo are saying 'document format is really no big deal, why make
a fuss'. And the contrary argument is 'Actually, this is a very big
deal to us, we care a lot about how the documents look and the type of
tools that can be
Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
What I find rather puzzling here is that most of the defenders of the
status quo are saying 'document format is really no big deal, why make
a fuss'.
?? I haven't seen anybody argue that, actually, and it would
be odd if they did.
I am in class E. I find being
On 3/15/2010 8:53 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
What I find rather puzzling here is that most of the defenders of the
status quo are saying 'document format is really no big deal, why make
a fuss'.
?? I haven't seen anybody argue that, actually, and it would
be odd
On 15.03.2010 17:00, todd glassey wrote:
...
Sorry - but the IETF should have moved into Web Based automated document
submission years ago.
...
It did.
Best regards, Julian
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
On 3/15/2010 9:07 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 15.03.2010 17:00, todd glassey wrote:
...
Sorry - but the IETF should have moved into Web Based automated document
submission years ago.
...
It did.
Best regards, Julian
Julian - if this was done properly there would be no need for an
On 15.03.2010 17:16, todd glassey wrote:
On 3/15/2010 9:07 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 15.03.2010 17:00, todd glassey wrote:
...
Sorry - but the IETF should have moved into Web Based automated document
submission years ago.
...
It did.
Best regards, Julian
Julian - if this was done
Phillip Hallam-Baker hallam at gmail dot com wrote:
9) Ability to code names properly
10) Ability to write an intelligible document on internationalization
issues
...
8, 9, 10) Only supported by HTML.
I continue to be puzzled by statements like this. A plain-text file
encoded in UTF-8 can
Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
...
Before you answer that, here is a list of consensus requirements on
the document format:
1) Easy to generate
2) Readily supported by a wide range of authoring tools
WYSIWYG authoring, IMO, ought to be required if we're claiming to climb
out of the stone age
Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
Before you answer that, here is a list of consensus requirements on
the document format:
The fundamental consensus requirement is that the document format MUST
be widely (and internationally) legible.
The internationalization requirement automatically excludes
On 15.03.2010 22:08, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
Before you answer that, here is a list of consensus requirements on
the document format:
The fundamental consensus requirement is that the document format MUST
be widely (and internationally) legible.
The
Julian Reschke wrote:
The internationalization requirement automatically excludes non-ASCII
characters.
How so?
People can read ASCII internationally. Even though, in Japan, back
slash characters are displayed as JPY mark in most environment,
Japanese know how to read them.
People can
On 16.03.2010 00:02, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Julian Reschke wrote:
The internationalization requirement automatically excludes non-ASCII
characters.
How so?
People can read ASCII internationally. Even though, in Japan, back
slash characters are displayed as JPY mark in most environment,
Julian Reschke wrote:
People can read/edit their local characters.
People can't read/edit local characters of other people.
A conservative approach would be:
1) allow non-ASCII contact information *in addition* to the ASCII version
2) allow non-ASCII in I18N example
No. The
Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
Since nobody was using teleprinters 500 years ago the introduction of
them here as a point of difference is ridiculous.
I can't see your point.
Are you begging our pardon and withdraw your stupid statement of
being able to interpret them in 1000 years time?
Or?
On 16.03.2010 00:37, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Julian Reschke wrote:
People can read/edit their local characters.
People can't read/edit local characters of other people.
A conservative approach would be:
1) allow non-ASCII contact information *in addition* to the ASCII version
2) allow
Phillip Hallam-Baker;
I can understand that you are seriously worrying about archaeology
of year 3010 and beyond.
However, I'm afraid no one else is interested in.
Masataka Ohta
___
Ietf mailing
On 2010-03-16 05:42, Doug Ewell wrote:
...
Note that I am not arguing in favor of plain text as the IETF standard.
I just want to keep this part of the discussion real. There is no
requirement anywhere that plain-text files may contain only ASCII
characters.
That requirement is explicit for
Julian Reschke wrote:
*A* conservative approach != The *most* conservative approach.
Your approach is no conservative.
Greek capital letter 'A', which is identical to Latin chapital
letter 'A', is already to much.
I don't see your point.
It's your problem.
I don't think anything was
52 matches
Mail list logo
