On Sun, 2005-12-04 at 12:22 +0100, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
on 2005-12-04 08:52 Doug Ewell said the following:
Perhaps it's just me, but I find it bizarre that the question of
limiting RFC text to ASCII vs. UTF-8 is being conflated with the
question of limiting RFC illustrations to "ASCII art" vs. other graphic
formats. I don't think the two have anything important in common.
It is two different issues.
They are easily conflated because in both cases the ASCII format is
limiting, and other richer formats are less limiting.
But you're right, and a change of subject line would have been in order.
If by other graphics, this could also mean utilizing graphical
characters to create clean lines, boxes, and borders. This could be a
matter of the character-repertoire going beyond ASCII in conjunction
with a drawing application. This approach should permit a simple
translation back into ASCII-artwork for the ASCII only version.
If by graphics you mean something more complex in terms of graphs and
charts, then having a means for reproducing these images will offer a
greater challenge. It would seem some open-source application should be
specified, where the input data is also made available. The ASCII only
version could list just this input data in lieu of graphics.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf