[rfc-i] Data point [Re: Fwd: I-DACTION:draft-hoffman-utf8-rfcs-03.txt]
duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
Wed Oct 8 18:17:24 PDT 2008
At 21:44 08/10/08, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>Martin Duerst wrote:
>> At 02:32 08/10/08, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>>> Anything that disrupts that utility for the human reader constitutes fragility.
>> Seems to make sense. As the main author of the IRI spec (RFC 3987),
>> it is my experience that the current ASCII-only restriction created
>> fragility, and that removing that restriction for examples,... would
>> significantly enhance end-to-end robustness for those who actually
>> need it (implementers,...).
>If something has never worked before, then its not working now is not "fragility".
The story looks different from my side. It worked before, in an age
where data on the Internet was mostly ASCII. It started to break down,
and show its "fragility", when we started to work on things like IDNs,
IRIs, and so on.
Or are you saying that it's always been working, and is continuing
to work, because IDNs and IRIs,... were never part of the plan and
would better go away? I think you would have to take that oppinion
(with which I'd strongly disagree) elsewhere.
>Adding support for something new is an "enhancement". Breaking something that has always worked is fragility.
Call it what you want, "borken", "not worky", whatever. What I'm
saying is that "has always worked" isn't exactly true if you include
specs like those for IDN, IRI, and so on.
>The issue is about preserving the installed base of user practice. Adding something new should not disrupt existing practice.
If that disruption only happens in those cases where it is beneficial
because it overall enhances things, then why not? Mind you, we are
not talking about moving all existing RFCs and Internet-Drafts to
non-ASCII, just those where the authors think there is a significant
benefit of doing so.
#-#-# Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
More information about the rfc-interest