Re: Form feed in Net-UTF8? (Was: FWD: Re: Comments onUnicode Format for Network Interchange

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Sun, 07 October 2007 20:38 UTC

Return-path: <discuss-bounces@apps.ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IectZ-0004xu-3q; Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:38:37 -0400
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IectY-0004xR-Be for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:38:36 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IectY-0004x4-25 for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:38:36 -0400
Received: from mail.songbird.com ([208.184.79.10]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IectR-0000Gn-Om for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:38:36 -0400
Received: from [10.6.159.200] (72-255-35-134.client.stsn.net [72.255.35.134]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l97Kbsmq001765 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <discuss@apps.ietf.org>; Sun, 7 Oct 2007 13:37:56 -0700
Message-ID: <4708F8DD.2010706@dcrocker.net>
Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2007 08:18:53 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: discuss@apps.ietf.org
Subject: Re: Form feed in Net-UTF8? (Was: FWD: Re: Comments onUnicode Format for Network Interchange
References: <398A6C120C8B166FCBD3BDAF@p3.JCK.COM> <20071005151227.GA31232@nic.fr> <E877BB045466189D5B4E287A@p3.JCK.COM> <6.0.0.20.2.20071006120622.0a6d4b10@localhost> <16279928490191A12E3B99E8@p3.JCK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <16279928490191A12E3B99E8@p3.JCK.COM>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 1.4 (+)
X-Scan-Signature: bb8f917bb6b8da28fc948aeffb74aa17
X-BeenThere: discuss@apps.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols <discuss.apps.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>, <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:discuss@apps.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>, <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: discuss-bounces@apps.ietf.org


John C Klensin wrote:
> While I could live with the text you propose above, it seems to
> me to lead onto a slippery slope.  Try substituting, for "page
> breaks" above, terms like "alert sounds", "visual emphasis such
> as highlighting or colored characters", or "flashing lines".
> FormFeeds are much more frequent in text, and do appear in RFCs,
> but the principles are, I think, the same.


Seems like the discussion is really distinguishing among different classes of 
use, where each might be labeled distinctly and have variants of permitted 
characters.

(I'm not expressing an opinion about whether this is a good thing to do, but 
merely noting that I think it is what is driving the discussion.

So the set for "data stream", such as protocol commands, needs minimal format 
effectors.  Whereas "document stream" probably needs all the format effectors 
and other visual indicators.

The reference to beeps suggests another role, which I suppose is a superset of 
format effectors and might be classed as "user interface" or somesuch.

Mumble...

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net