On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, John Leslie wrote:
Tony Finch <dot(_at_)dotat(_dot_)at> wrote:
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005, Eric Allman wrote:
Interesting proposal, but I wonder if it's realistic. It seems to presume
that folks have implemented CSA in the first place. I find I can't really
evaluate that proposal well, because I frankly find it hard to read.
[ mid-conversation change of mailing list ]
It's hard to guess the context here...
See the References: and In-Reply-To: header fields for links to the
context. In any case, it isn't relevant to the poor readability of the CSA
I agree, but I haven't succeeded with my suggested improvements to the spec.
Perhaps you'd like to outline these improvements?
I did so over a year ago, and changes to the spec since then mean that the
suggestion is no longer useful. See my messages from 16 Jun 2004 Subject:
Re: CSV specification revision available. My suggestions were apparently
"totally unacceptable" so I lost enthusiasm for working on wording
f.a.n.finch <dot(_at_)dotat(_dot_)at> http://dotat.at/
BISCAY: WEST 5 OR 6 BECOMING VARIABLE 3 OR 4. SHOWERS AT FIRST. MODERATE OR