From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: Tue Nov 09 1999 - 05:46:08 CST
In <19991108102129.22839@main.templetons.com> Brad Templeton <brad@main.templetons.com> writes:
>The other purpose in defining it would be to formalize nocem and bring
>it into the fold, which is what standards working groups do. The USENET
>standard should not be a haphazard collection of things with incompatible
>syntaxes and semantics.
Yes, but formalizing nocem would be a major addition to our draft and
hence forbidden at the moment by our Chariman's edict. And we cannot just
go and do it without consultation with Cancelmoose, or whoever is
currently responsible. And even then it should probably be in a separate
RFC. Does anyone else want to go down this route?
-- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Email: chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Voice/Fax: +44 161 437 4506 Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5