[rfc-i] Data point [Re: Fwd:I-D ACTION:draft-hoffman-utf8-rfcs-03.txt]
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Tue Oct 7 09:47:01 PDT 2008
Joe Touch wrote:
>> The traditional fixed-format ASCII provides high utility for... um,
>> who was that again?
> It's archival. As in "in 40 years we will still be able to read and
> print it". We don't have that info for HTML.
Well. If in 40 years from now, we can't read HTML 4.01 anymore, we are
really in serious trouble.
>> Anyhow, at the moment all we're arguing about is including non-ASCII
>> characters in a few highly constrained places without abandoning the
>> traditional format.
> My point is that UTF-8 does not achieve that goal; by allowing non-ASCII
> in names and addresses, it destroys the current page boundary marker,
> and does not appear to provide an alternative.
Not allowing form feed IMHO was an oversight.
Can we assume it will be allowed, and continue the discussion based on that?
More information about the rfc-interest