Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal draft formatting standards required

[Ole Jacobsen <ole at cisco.com>]

Iljitsch,

That "box" shows up as complete gibberish in a plain-text mail reader 
(pine in my case), which sort of proves the point about ASCII. What 
you sent was certainly not ASCII.

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: ole at cisco.com  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj



On Thu, 2 Jul 2009, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

> On 2 jul 2009, at 17:05, Stewart Bryant wrote:
> 
> > > >A much better solution would be HTML
> 
> > >This seems obviously true everywhere outside the IETF mailing list.
> 
> 
> >The showstopper has always been with figures which need to do in separate
> >files. How do you  manipulate the collection of files as a single object?
> 
> Multiple files seems problematic.
> 
> However, we can stick with ASCII art even if we adopt HTML.
> 
>   ┏━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┯━━━━━━━━━━━┓
>   ┃ An influx of a (hopefully limited) set │ of unicode symbols┃
>   ┃ could allow for more expressiveness in │ this area.        ┃
>   ┗━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┷━━━━━━━━━━━┛
>