- From: Marshall Rose <mrose+mtr.netnews@dbc.mtview.ca.us>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 15:36:53 -0700
- To: "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle@w3.org>
- Cc: "Eve L. Maler" <Eve.Maler@east.sun.com>, <spec-prod@w3.org>, "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Marshall Rose" <mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.us>
first, a correction: i've been writing "rfc 2222" and i meant to write "rfc 2223". oops! > I'm not following. ... > ASCII art is tricky. However, this bit only hassles those that need to > present in both the IETF and W3C. One could have a graphic element type, and > an alternative type, which might even be included as the Web Accessibility > Initiative encourages this sort of thing. this is what i wanted to get across: something that produces output for 2223 and other more expressive formats is going to have to allow for duality... > However, one day there might be neat SVG to ASCII art formats, AND you never > know, IETF might permit HTML/XML one day. <grin> err, don't, uh, hold your breath... > Do you have a public list set up for discussion of and maintaining 2629? If > not, would you mind having those discussion in this forum? Dan Connolly, > would this be acceptable to you as the guy that started this list? there isn't a list, per se, people send me email and sometime it gets through [private joke to joseph]. we can certainly discuss it in this forum. guess i'd better subscribe! /mtr
Received on Tuesday, 13 June 2000 18:37:44 UTC