[rfc-i] I-D ACTION:draft-hoffman-utf8-rfcs-02.txt

Tim Bray tbray at textuality.com
Sun Sep 28 23:03:00 PDT 2008

On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 10:02 PM, Keith Moore <moore at cs.utk.edu> wrote:

> The UTF-8 charset is widely supported.  What may not be so widely
> supported is UTF-8 with FF characters to mark page breaks, and CR LF
> sequences to mark ends of lines.
> (Note that arguably, net-ascii is not as well supported as it used to
> be.  Last I knew, Windows systems could not even print them correctly.)

FWIW, I have never been able to get either my Windows (up to 2003) or
OS X boxes (since) to print RFCs reliably.  So when assertions about
the Universal Usability Of ASCII are bandied about I tend to some
bitterness.  I haven't lived in an 80-column 66-line monospaced world
for a very, very long time.  For which reasons...

> An interesting variant on UTF-8 might be very minimal HTML
> The problem isn't realizing that
> a line needs to be drawn somewhere, but getting agreement on where to
> draw the line.

Agreed 100%.  If the metric is maximizing accessibility and usability
for the largest number of people in the largest number of places, then
simple, validated, HTML with some optional CSS for prettiness would
arguably score higher than the current setup.

But that's not the argument we're having here.  Right now, the issue
is UTF8-or-not.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list