From: Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)
Date: Mon Jul 02 2001 - 18:11:21 CDT
Charles Lindsey <chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk> writes:
> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes:
>> 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.
Which will be one of my last call objections if it's still there.
> I think that is OK,
I don't. None of those aspects of article body format belong in a
standards track RFC. Your description above, in fact, is a perfect
description of the sort of thing one puts into an informational RFC.
-- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>