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 art" vs. other graphic > > formats. I don't think the two have anything important in common. > > It is two different issues. > > They are easily conflated because in both cases the ASCII format is > limiting, and other richer formats are less limiting. > > But you're right, and a change of subject line would have been in order. If by other graphics, 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 ASCII-artwork for the ASCII only version. If by graphics you mean something more complex in terms of graphs and charts, then having a means for reproducing these images will offer a greater challenge. It would seem some open-source application should be specified, where the input data is also made available. The ASCII only version could list just this input data in lieu of graphics. -Doug _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf