[rfc-i] Data point [Re: Fwd:I-D ACTION:draft-hoffman-utf8-rfcs-03.txt]
touch at ISI.EDU
Tue Oct 7 10:17:41 PDT 2008
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Julian Reschke wrote:
> 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.
Why 4.01? Why not 3? or 2? or 1? or 0.99? What's special about 4.01, and
if HTML is such a moving target, what makes you think it will support
the version used this week?
>>> 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
Sure. Seems like there's work to be done before we proceed in finding a
format and demonstrating that it can handle, for a variety of current
and some reasonbly-old OS's:
- page breaks
- line breaks
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the rfc-interest