IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [xml2rfc] Unicode box-drawing for a new --table-borders value?

Tom Pusateri <pusateri@bangj.com> Sat, 30 January 2021 19:35 UTC

Return-Path: <pusateri@bangj.com>
X-Original-To: xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D12023A1082 for <xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 30 Jan 2021 11:35:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=bangj.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 H3wxJhDFQDs2 for <xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 30 Jan 2021 11:35:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oj.bangj.com (69-77-154-174.static.skybest.com [69.77.154.174]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4AC8E3A107E for <xml2rfc@ietf.org>; Sat, 30 Jan 2021 11:35:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.16.88.114] (cpe-65-184-148-2.ec.res.rr.com [65.184.148.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by oj.bangj.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EDA752FE33; Sat, 30 Jan 2021 14:35:07 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=bangj.com; s=201907; t=1612035308; bh=zdxRk1VQL6kvPNsEKoRKFkfMnZts+QYxACqhTmZHPTE=; h=From:Subject:Date:References:Cc:In-Reply-To:To:From; b=Bjr3QkQRaFOyD7QsuPaCbo5Nb3DaJrCTjLGe508Fp9HgJVLKOyUQ7JRS0OW81gh9U 35onyMOtGN3bsLCGjECPZ3TOYH+q32m8eZOSrJAaa2lgelrHpAopZ3gfE1LunRG93e 8uNJ1A/cC8WCBVOQ/0oWT4spdz6YOjL803WCSQVcvGJ3TaMpaJZMSBsFcSU3ac8f2f L5jMWDvwOlhUXpTFEm9HU1tK83XfkZrw+ll7JDmxR+Wpr+RKtRS1h2crpNpE3qpT8q Jb8i8lAcameOqG1+EMqAOq147AOSx9EyDQUa7yCVMm+Hmbu/sAEcd2xuQbZOyfO3rI 4CER8khkXFXMg==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Tom Pusateri <pusateri@bangj.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2021 14:35:07 -0500
Message-Id: <D845069B-087D-406A-80D8-0D36D7A4799D@bangj.com>
References: <20210130190821.7504E6D02AD4@ary.qy>
Cc: xml2rfc@ietf.org, dkg@fifthhorseman.net
In-Reply-To: <20210130190821.7504E6D02AD4@ary.qy>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (18D52)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xml2rfc/VrGR2SHXuRPGQrnu25F8Llgue5g>
Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Unicode box-drawing for a new --table-borders value?
X-BeenThere: xml2rfc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <xml2rfc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/xml2rfc>, <mailto:xml2rfc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/xml2rfc/>
List-Post: <mailto:xml2rfc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xml2rfc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xml2rfc>, <mailto:xml2rfc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2021 19:35:16 -0000


> On Jan 30, 2021, at 2:08 PM, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
> 
> In article <8735yje4kt.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> you write:
>> -=-=-=-=-=-
>> Hi xml2rfc folks--
>> 
>> Now that we can include unicode characters in our text documents, has
>> anyone considered adding a new type of --table-borders flag that uses
>> the unicode box-drawing characters?
> 
> The text version is basically to provide some degree of backward
> compatibility. If you want a version that is easy to read, I encourage
> you to open your web browser and look at the HTML version.
> 
> R's,
> John

In the past, we’ve been told that the text version was the official version and the HTML was not. It sounds like this is now being reversed. Backward compatible doesn’t sound like official. But “easy to read” doesn’t sound like it’s official either. Could you clarify?

Thanks,
Tom

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email