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

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

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

From: Stewart Bryant <stbryant at cisco.com>
To: Pete Resnick <presnick at qualcomm.com>
Cc: Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn at mindspring.com>, Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch at muada.com>, tbray at textuality.com, Discussion Mailing List <ietf at ietf.org>, IETF at core3.amsl.com
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:16:00 +0100
In-reply-to: <p06250107c673e4baa234 at [75.145.176.242]>
References: <C671B2EF.2EB7%stefan at aaa-sec.com> <000a01c9fa9f$cbc996a0$6801a8c0 at oemcomputer> <4A4BEFDD.6070008 at gmail.com> <48E7911F78327A449A9FB9563766728611D572E5 at exrad4.ad.rad.co.il> <B1268053-5659-4E0A-85FD-DC72404DFDD3 at muada.com> <517bf110907020746q527dda57j1fa402e657f246a5 at mail.gmail.com> <4A4CCCD3.7030501 at cisco.com> <p06250105c672e4c9a55c at [75.145.176.242]> <70ED21D2-1DF5-49F2-8A85-A425AC015D1E at muada.com> <p06250107c673e4baa234 at [75.145.176.242]>

Pete

Getting rid of a page-layout format as our authoritative form isprimary. Using characters that do not occur in English is next downthe list. Everything else is extra.

Surely maximizing the probability of correct understanding
by the reader is primary. Everything else is just a mechanism.

Stewart

References:
- Re: More liberal draft formatting standards required
  - From: Stefan Santesson
- Re: More liberal draft formatting standards required
  - From: Randy Presuhn
- Re: More liberal draft formatting standards required
  - From: Melinda Shore
- RE: More liberal draft formatting standards required
  - From: Yaakov Stein
- RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal draft formatting standards required
  - From: Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal draft formatting standards required
  - From: Tim Bray
- Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal draft formatting standards required
  - From: Stewart Bryant
- Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal draft formatting standards required
  - From: Pete Resnick
- Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal draft formatting standards required
  - From: Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal draft formatting standards required
  - From: Pete Resnick

Prev by Date: Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal draft formatting standards required
Next by Date: Two different threads (was: More liberal draft formatting standards required)
Previous by thread: Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal draft formatting standards required
Next by thread: Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal draft formatting standards required
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

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

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.