Subject: [apps-discuss] review for draft-seantek-text-nfo-02

From: Erik Wilde <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 19:47:00 -0800

hello.

i have volunteered to review draft-seantek-text-nfo-02. there already 
have been reviews and comments made in the following thread:

https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/threads.html#14639

section 2:

if the charset media type parameter is required, why would it even have 
a default?

nit: since "baud" really is about bit rate, it probably should be "bps" 
instead (baud is slightly different in its definition), but that's as 
minor as things can possibly get.

wrt to the question about how/if escape sequences count for RFC 5147 
fragment identifiers: i am not sure why they wouldn't (as the current 
draft says), because RFC 5147 does not operate at the level of text/nfo 
(which does define rather elaborate semantics for certain character 
sequences). from the perspective of text/plain (which is what RFC 5147 
is defined for), escape sequences are nothing special; they simply are 
sequences of encoded characters. for this reason, i would assume that 
escape sequences count like other characters, but maybe martin duerst 
(co-author of RFC 5147) could pitch in here as well?

section 3:

after reading through section 3, the following sentence from the 
abstract does not really seem to apply:

'While mostly compatible with text/plain, ".NFO" filesand content have 
unique encoding and rendering characteristics that make them 
distinguishable from typical plain text.'

it seems more that text/nfo is a language that does have text-based 
parts, but also have rather elaborate semantics when it comes to 
rendering the media type with all required formatting semantics.

kind regards,

dret.

-- 
erik wilde | mailto:[email-masked] |
            | http://dret.net/netdret    |
            | http://twitter.com/dret    |