From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: Mon Jul 02 2001 - 06:05:03 CDT
In <yl8zibyrc5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes:
>Seth Breidbart <sethb@panix.com> writes:
>> Which reminds me: Do we mention ROT-13 in this draft? Should we?
>That would be a good thing to go with sig dashs, *markup*, attribution
>lines, spoiler characters, and the other stuff people were talking about
>putting into a separate informational RFC.
Well, at the moment, all that stuff is in our section 4, on a "here are
some conventions used within bodies; if you want to do these things, then
please do it this way" basis. I think that is OK, because there will be
interoperability problems between agents that look at these things (and
many do) if they are not done consistently. And it is all current practice
(modulo a bit of tidying up of the notations).
So ROT-13 could easily be added in that section if people want it.
-- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk 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