Ken Raeburn wrote:
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.
How would I encode graphics in UTF-8?
Stewart
Ken
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf