On Thu, 5 Jun 1997, Kent Karlson wrote:
> Martin J. Duerst wrote:
> > @fr-fr@soixante-dix%@fr-ch@septante%@en@seventy%@de@siebzig
> This would work, but is problematic mainly because the "@" is
> a toggle. A simplistic non-toggle version could be:
A nice variant I wouldn't have anything to say agains.
> On meta-data marking:
> Some have here suggested that meta-text (or other meta-
> markers) should be distinguished on a per character basis.
> Sure, it might be easier to distinguish proper text from
> meta-text if the meta-text was marked as such on a per character
> basis, but:
> 1. We have done without such *per character* "meta"-status
> indications for decades now.
Yes indeed. And in particular in the case of open systems,
and IETF application-level protocols. There migth have been
thousands of neat ways to misuse some lone C0 control
character in some wierd hitherto unused combination
to achieve e.g. what is now done by RFC 1522 (204x).
Yet =? ? ? ?= was choosen. Four-letter command codes
in HTTP, FTP,... could easily be shortened to one byte
with binary encoding. There are tons more of examples.
I really don't understand why such seasoned IETF practitioners
such as Mark Crispin and Chris Newman think they need to
abandon these prooved principles for the advantage of a few
microseconds on searching.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:34 EDT