[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.

   Brian

> 
> 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.
>>
>> +1
>>
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
> 



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list