[rfc-i] New version: draft-hoffman-utf8-rfcs-04.txt

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Thu Nov 6 07:57:38 PST 2008


Keith Moore wrote:
> ...
> Basically I find the benefit for "plain UTF-8 text" to not be
> sufficiently compelling to justify the pain of changing and the
> disruption that this would cause given the state of existing tools.  I
> can make a much stronger case for use of HTML in RFCs, with UTF-8 as the
> character set.  First, it appears that web browsers are much more likely
> to provide good support for UTF-8 (display as well as printing) than
> tools that handle "plain text".   Second,  unlike plain text, HTML has
> an integral and well-established mechanism for specifying its character
> set.  Third, HTML RFCs would presumably permit use of images to display
> examples - including but not limited to examples of how non-ASCII
> characters should be rendered.  This is much more reliable than
> expecting the reader's tools (even his web browser) to correctly render
> UTF-8.
> ...

I would support moving to a well-defined XHTML profile as well. That 
being said, I just don't see how to get there, if we can't even get away 
from plain ASCII.

BR, Julian



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list