[rfc-i] Scanning non-ASCII text
Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Wed Sep 26 05:07:42 PDT 2012
On 26/09/2012 09:25, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
> I fully agree with Paul and Joe. Regards, Martin.
As far as scanning goes, I agree. There is an argument if
OCR is ever required, but I doubt if it's very significant.
> On 2012/09/26 15:05, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote:
>> On 9/25/12 7:54 PM, "Paul Hoffman"<paul.hoffman at vpnc.org> wrote:
>>> Greetings again. The -00 draft gives as an argument for keeping the
>>> all-ASCII requirement:
>>> * In extreme cases of having to retype/scan hard copies of
>>> documents (it has been required in the past) ASCII is
>>> significantly easier to work with for rescanning and retaining
>>> all of the original information. There can be no loss of
>>> descriptive metadata such as keywords or content tags.
>>> This doesn't hold up for two reasons. First, scanning software has
>>> handled non-ASCII characters just fine for well over a decade. Second,
>>> and more important: no RFC created in the future will exist only in a
>>> printed version.
>>> Proposal: remove this bullet from the draft entirely.
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest