[rfc-i] Data point [Re: Fwd:I-D ACTION:draft-hoffman-utf8-rfcs-03.txt]
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Tue Oct 7 12:46:03 PDT 2008
Joe Touch wrote:
> xml2rfc is a way to write docs, not to read or print them.
I didn't claim otherwise.
text/plain in UTF-8 displays fine in browsers, and prints fine once you
can a short script on them, or use the service on tools.ietf.org. For
any platform that has a relatively modern web browser.
>> We apparently disagree on the merits of xml2rfc. Calling it "stone-age"
>> doesn't help in this discussion.
>> We will make the "stone-age" tool generate UTF-8. If that's possible, I
>> would assume that it should be possible to adapt more "modern" tools as
> Assume it all you like; until someone shows it, it has not been proven.
> I am not claiming it's not possible, but I will claim that without a
> demonstration, Paul's original assertion remains false:
> "Now that UTF-8 [RFC3629] is nearly universally available in text-
> editing and display systems,"
OK, just to make sure I get that right: you did manage to get Word to
produce ASCII RFCs, and you like that. You do not know how to get Word
to produce UTF-8.
That's sufficient reason for not *allowing* that format?
More information about the rfc-interest