IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rfc-i] Request for feedback: the new CSS

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Fri, 02 December 2016 22:53 UTC

Return-Path: <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C58DB129435 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Dec 2016 14:53:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.984
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.984 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.896, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (body has been altered)" header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RZ5gh4fWwqYm for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Dec 2016 14:52:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 35C2012944A for <rfc-interest-archive-eekabaiReiB1@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Dec 2016 14:52:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF08AB8007E; Fri, 2 Dec 2016 14:52:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Delivered-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91079B8007E for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 2 Dec 2016 14:52:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Authentication-Results: rfcpa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rfcpa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Mr7Mhg6HoLNI for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 2 Dec 2016 14:52:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg0-x231.google.com (mail-pg0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::231]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43978B8007C for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 2 Dec 2016 14:52:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg0-x231.google.com with SMTP id p66so112131412pga.2 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 02 Dec 2016 14:52:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=n3D5H91Z2Fqo7azrd8B7R3cCNMZt0ZDVf34XJygMdJ0=; b=VYrtTFLnWNxXgEFSCC+NQ1bXXS3X2jrt2AOkJgQbTI6+mdEYCE/nYNw99zcngAuC3R XFNXzfohV2ycAAj/H0xlpD1MuUfp/uWbG4d6f+Od0NgNaSDyN72nAW1WyyV1CFAo5Mk+ v3/hNMNNXb/iViSYofv/HuNH/fxc2qjLGizalhoI6FarXNW9G9wECc4RJLh4XZwx3CSv g6+p78Up0Z4fKv53SWDtyaNWgtVMrGuVOFA/Ud/uWkN/r/0or6oy1+q1jn2bM/bxW/lF 5OviuXDNH1mcoAV+oeSNMVQPlAj/f2h/OV+iJJ66WFTkEc1LL03hnrkWx1CiZPmW5/H/ Uo4A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=n3D5H91Z2Fqo7azrd8B7R3cCNMZt0ZDVf34XJygMdJ0=; b=VcwxTb739QqOAS9WCuujiq+aXQ4chBhNSnvkF8vwk8Wjr0weECyEaT+eiQJVJsEGOU k5MsVOwIL3IZ4ihs7mlwXAtaIpZ+ALp/oexeopP9z5F+rJOIXMm6QeRbSvUL5+q5oA2B t7Q4ZUymfDtyA4c5T2VikAtPwm1KtCb15n21f4mQRwk9ihJgfOM4VCWugUN07cgDKnxs tmXWep08e/iRdk9JJtLnXMeIYZS/AAIw0P9HvfRSXUupckt8YMx7b4tVw2UewH9ijQs5 8iL9zuvPLnXSvCClwHsbhx7k5IW8pPZFUZfWLvTaFPYNoIVggegLAiOEiv0FRj1m1dO8 ADNA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC03Of+wHc/trBUwC3eLXgWEUsZBQwViYe4RMXQsp2xH7wZTVnpJsiL2fh0pB7hcgzA==
X-Received: by 10.99.5.21 with SMTP id 21mr83168879pgf.32.1480719175693; Fri, 02 Dec 2016 14:52:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.178.21] (169.227.69.111.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [111.69.227.169]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y189sm10048717pfy.32.2016.12.02.14.52.53 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 02 Dec 2016 14:52:55 -0800 (PST)
To: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
References: <20161202221919.7465.qmail@ary.lan> <e46334f6-3e0b-809e-8a5f-1a3784ebf588@gmail.com> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1612021739190.55231@ary.qy>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <dd4f4474-2166-35c8-b447-601b6bf3cb1b@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2016 11:53:03 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.11.1612021739190.55231@ary.qy>
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Request for feedback: the new CSS
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <rfc-interest.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
Cc: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

On 03/12/2016 11:39, John R Levine wrote:
>>> For that matter, I'd argue that since the XML is the canonical format,
>>> the XML code markings clearly label the code and we're done.
>>
>> Yes, that *ought* to be the case, but I would much prefer to see the Trust legal
>> provisions modified accordingly. It's going to be complicated enough persuading
>> lawyers and judges that XML is more canonical than plain text, without also
>> expecting them to re-interpret the Trust text as well.
> 
> I'm a trustee, I can bring it up.

That's great John, thanks. I think a very few words can fix it. Let me know
if I can help in any way.

   Brian
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email