Re: Baby Steps (was RE: Alternative formats for IDs)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Jan 5, 2006, at 09:25, Ash, Gerald R ((Jerry)) wrote:
I'd suggest we try to reach consensus first on the following:
Alternative format(s) for IDs, in addition to ASCII text, should be allowed.

One requirement/motivation for this change (as set forth in the ID) is to be able to include drawings and diagrams with something much more flexible than ASCII art.

Based on the prior discussion of 'ASCII art', and the current discussion, I see few people arguing that ASCII text is all we need and that no other formats should ever be allowed.

Let's set aside for now which format(s), and take that as a later step if we can take this first step.

Splitting the question this way paves the way for those pushing for alternative formats to frame the next question as, "Which alternative format are we going to allow?", as if it's already decided that we're going to allow *some* alternative and just have to find the best, or at least the least objectionable, even if there aren't any that fulfill the IETF's overall needs as well as plain ASCII text. If you add the qualifier, "if they meet our requirements" ("... better than plain ASCII text"?), then I doubt you'll get much disagreement with that statement, though you'll probably get a lot of discussion about how we don't yet *have* a specific list of requirements. As Brian's brown paper bag note suggests, we should start there, not with the assumption that we *will* allow some alternate format....

Personally, I'm skeptical that we'll find an alternative that meets our requirements as well, but perhaps we'll wind up with plain UTF-8 text or something.

Ken

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]