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

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Mon, 05 December 2016 19:33 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 02D41129593 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Dec 2016 11:33:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 WzPdcBz2PqIk for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Dec 2016 11:33:16 -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 1B1FA129592 for <rfc-interest-archive-eekabaiReiB1@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Dec 2016 11:33:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9D88B805B4; Mon, 5 Dec 2016 11:33:15 -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 0B5DAB805B4 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 5 Dec 2016 11:33:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
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 AJwuPkyjQZVD for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 5 Dec 2016 11:33:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B957B805B3 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 5 Dec 2016 11:33:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 83103 invoked from network); 5 Dec 2016 19:33:12 -0000
Received: from unknown (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 5 Dec 2016 19:33:12 -0000
Date: 5 Dec 2016 19:32:46 -0000
Message-ID: <20161205193246.24386.qmail@ary.lan>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
In-Reply-To: <d225b5da-c80e-6b69-ed3d-8cafcdd941df@gmail.com>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
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>
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>

>I understand that. I think there's a broader issue though. Throughout the TLP the word "text" is used to refer to
>the contents of an IETF document. IANAL but don't we need some words that will prevent
>ambiguity when the canonical form changes from plain text?

IANAL, but no.  The TLP is in effect a contract, and contracts are
interpreted by humans, not by computers.

R's,
John
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest