[rfc-i] Data point [Re: Fwd:I-D ACTION:draft-hoffman-utf8-rfcs-03.txt]

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Tue Oct 7 13:16:04 PDT 2008


Joe Touch wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> 
> 
> Julian Reschke wrote:
> ...
>>> No it doesn't. My browser does not understand or honor FFs.
>> TRY IT!
> 
> Repeat - my browser doesn't understand or honor FFs.
> 
> You can program my browser to have a CSS that does so, but I have to
> visit the right site for that to work.

Yes.

That would be a reason not to stay with text/plain, but to use something 
that can represent page breaks in today's operating systems, such as 
HTML+CSS. I would support that, but I have my doubts that it's possible 
to gather support for *that*.

> What I cannot do is open a .utf8 file and have it work.

I'm sure you could if the right piece of (free) software is installed.

But it sounds that still wouldn't be acceptable to you, right?

> Yes, I like Word for writing RFCs, but I don't think it's reasonable to
> require users to purchase it to read/print them properly.

I guess we'll all agree on that.

> I don't think it's reasonable to require users to read/print files that
> are not the definitive version (i.e., other than the .utf8); if the file
> that they save/view/print isn't the .utf8, then we are talking about
> requiring different files for different purposes.
> 
> I see neither of these as a step forward.

Out of curiosity: do you have a different proposal; or do you prefer not 
to try to solve the I18N issue?

>>>> but that printing isn't. That's the same for both ASCII and
>>>> UTF-8. I personally don't care at all. I don't print things anymore.
>>> No it's not the same for ASCII. I can view and print and preserve page
>>> boundaries in both in Wordpad, which is free on Windows.
>> I just tried and it doesn't work. What steps do I need to follow to get
>> there?
> 
> Save the text-only version. Open in Wordpad. That's it.

Not over here. The page margin defaults in Wordpad apparently are 
different and need to be modified manually.

>> I just tried it and it didn't work for me. Maybe my printing defaults
>> are different -- the default layout I get is to narrow (lines break that
>> shouldn't) and not long enough (footers appear on the next side).
> 
> Setup the page for letter (i.e., US letter). That might be the issue.

Tried it, and still didn't work. Margins still too wide.

> When you print, you should be able to set something like "reduce to
> printed page", which will shrink the output slightly and print it on A4.
> 
>>>> I have told you about another one that will work both for ASCII and
>>>> UTF-8. How many ways do we need?
>>> You've shown me a way that works only if I use commercial software.
>> Firefox?
>>
>> Why can't we just rely on a format and software that's the base of the
>> WWW. It *does* work.
> 
> So now you're not proposing UTF-8; you're proposing .html with UTF-8 and
> a corresponding .css as the standard format. That's beyond what
> draft-hoffman is proposing, and beyond what is being considered, AFAICT.

I'm not really proposing it. I'm just stating that this is available and 
will continue to be available, and it works fine *everywhere*.

If the whole discussion has proved anything is that even with plain 
ASCII, it's absolutely non-trivial to print out RFCs nowadays. I don't 
think that's a problem. But we *can* give people instructions that solve 
the issue without any local requirements except for a relatively recent 
browser, and I think that's totally sufficient.

BR, Julian


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list