[rfc-i] tabs [was: sourcecode indentation]

julian.reschke at gmx.de (Julian Reschke) Mon, 22 February 2016 17:57 UTC

From: julian.reschke at gmx.de (Julian Reschke)
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 18:57:45 +0100
Subject: [rfc-i] tabs [was: sourcecode indentation]
In-Reply-To: <32EC7CAB-1D10-4CE8-B143-FC1409DCBB3E@cisco.com>
References: <B7E2CCFD-F56B-4749-B8D2-C3F4CFF3EF5F@cisco.com> <56C2B0E8.7070900@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <F5B55E50-D7AA-427A-932C-37D4872F9BD4@cisco.com> <56C2CAD6.7060500@tzi.org> <56C6F747.6060400@gmx.de> <32EC7CAB-1D10-4CE8-B143-FC1409DCBB3E@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <56CB4C19.2050405@gmx.de>

On 2016-02-22 18:50, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote:
> On 2/19/16, 4:06 AM, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
>
>
>
>> FWIW, BS and RS aren't allowed in XML 1.0, so we'd need to define a
>> custom way to represent them...
>
> base64 if you need to generate a binary file.  As a matter of fact, do we need the equivalent of "Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64" in the XML?  RFC 6716 might have used that.
>
> If you just want to make the text understood, ?(U+241E: SYMBOL FOR RECORD SEPARATOR) and ?(U+2408: SYMBOL FOR BACKSPACE) are handy.

Clarifying: I don't believe it's a problem. The format doesn't need to 
transfer binary files -- after all, we can't display them in TXT, HTML, 
or PDF.

Best regards, Julian