[rfc-i] Use of unicode

["Martin J. Dürst"]

On 2012/04/24 7:00, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 4/23/12 3:17 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

> I think that people would include both an ASCII (traditional) email
> address and a Unicode (EAI) email address.

I think so too. Same for names, unless they are just Latin with diacritics.

>> Even when all non 7-bit ASCII characters are summarily stripped from
>> an RFC it must be possible to implement that RFC.

So let's move 20 or 30 years back and say "even when all upper-case 
characters are summarily stripped from an RFC it must be possible to 
implement that RFC". How much sense does that make?

Do you assume that a reader would be aware of the fact that non-ASCII is 
stripped? If yes, shouldn't they just go make sure they have the 
non-stripped version?


> That's why I said we'd want to make sure that documents would include
> both the properly-encoded Unicode code points along with the actual code
> point numbers or names.

There are cases where having the codepoint numbers is very important. 
The best example is syntactically/protocol-wise relevant characters. But 
it's a bad idea as a general guideline. For example, it doesn't make 
sense in author's names.

Regards,   Martin.