Re: Towards consensus on document format

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

 



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 'interesting'.


On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Doug Ewell <doug@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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 contain any Unicode character that an HTML document
> can contain.
>
> 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.
>
> --
> Doug Ewell  |  Thornton, Colorado, USA  |  http://www.ewellic.org
> RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14  |  ietf-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s ­
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>



-- 
-- 
New Website: http://hallambaker.com/
View Quantum of Stupid podcasts, Tuesday and Thursday each week,
http://quantumofstupid.com/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


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