IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] On citations in general

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Wed, 25 April 2012 18:37 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8C4321F88B9 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 11:37:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.308
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.308 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.309, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_65=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2qC+7ko+nqLW for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 11:37:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3554321F88A2 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 11:37:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [64.101.72.115] (unknown [64.101.72.115]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BAB9C40058; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 12:52:03 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <4F984466.8020704@stpeter.im>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 12:37:26 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
References: <CAC4RtVBu=dQtc5A-h7sFa0nkowwqd61YfKs1AX2Xzhr2Fr0Btw@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120425095148.0a7f0bf0@resistor.net> <20120425172555.GM60024@mail.yitter.info>
In-Reply-To: <20120425172555.GM60024@mail.yitter.info>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] On citations in general
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 18:37:35 -0000

On 4/25/12 11:26 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 09:58:25AM -0700, SM wrote:
>> BTW, this is more of a matter of style.
> 
> And consequently of religion.  I'd prefer that we not talk about it,
> either here or on rfc-i, since in both cases I think we will explore
> every rathole possible (and some impossible ones) involving Fowler
> vs. Strunk&White, MLA vs. Chicago, involving whatever
> your 3d grade teacher said even though s/he couldn't write worth a
> tinker's dam (yes, that's how it's spelled), and the Oxford comma and
> requirements for its use.  I have the Gowers edition Fowler on my
> book-shelf, and I am as happy to waive it about as the next person.
> But I don't think we're going to be more productive that way.

Agreed. Indeed, perhaps we could learn from Jon Postel's advice to
authors: read a recent RFC and emulate its style.

/psa

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email