[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Protocol Action: 'INTERNET MESSAGE ACCESS PROTOCOL - SORT AND THREAD EXTENSIONS' to Proposed Standard




Bob:

I am not pushing for one or the other for this document. I'm simply pointing out that the authors used the same title case as the document that is being updated.

Russ

At 01:39 PM 4/7/2008, Bob Braden wrote:


  *>
  *> See RFC 3501
  *>

Russ,

I am trying to figure out whether you are serious.  Of course, there
have been individual failures in the past.  In fact, 821 or 822 (I foreget
which) was a title-case failure.  But the existence of an occasional
error does not seem to justify deliberately doing it wrong in the
future.  (I will have to admit to a certain bias... upper-cased
titles remind me of the days when network-illiterate Big Iron
users would sometimes send all-caps messages to the Internet.)  It
is generally agreed, I believe, that some reasonable uniformity of
style is desirable in the RFC series.  And the title appears in the
index and a dumb-looking title stands out as a wierdness.

Bob Braden

  *> At 05:27 PM 4/3/2008, Bob Braden wrote:
  *>
  *>
  *> >   *> The IESG has approved the following document:
  *> >   *>
*> > *> - 'INTERNET MESSAGE ACCESS PROTOCOL - SORT AND THREAD EXTENSIONS '
  *> >   *>    <draft-ietf-imapext-sort-20.txt> as a Proposed Standard
  *> >   *>
  *> >
  *> >Why is this document shouting at us?  Title case is the norm for
  *> >RFCs.
  *> >
  *> >RFC Editor/bb
  *> >
  *> >  *> Two simple/optional improvements:
  *> >   *> Add a normative reference to STD 63 (RFC3629) for UTF-8.
  *> >   *> Instead of allowing any 8-bit in BLOBCHAR and NONWSP,
  *> > reference the rules
  *> >   *> in RFC 3629 for well-formed UTF-8 (UTF8-2, UTF8-3, UTF8-4).
  *> >   *>
  *>