[rfc-i] Comments on draft-iab-rfcformatreq

Dave Thaler dthaler at microsoft.com
Mon Dec 17 17:36:15 PST 2012


Also it's not just about displaying correctly, there's issues of confusability
if the display character is normative (as opposed to U-xxxx being normative,
which is not confusable).    So the wording you (Heather) mention is still
pretty problematic compared to something precise like

"Codepoints greater than U+007F can only appear in non-normative text"

-Dave


> -----Original Message-----
> From: rfc-interest-bounces at rfc-editor.org [mailto:rfc-interest-bounces at rfc-
> editor.org] On Behalf Of Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)
> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 4:30 PM
> To: Ted Lemon; Heather Flanagan
> Cc: rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Comments on draft-iab-rfcformatreq
> 
> On 12/17/12 1:00 PM, "Ted Lemon" <mellon at fugue.com> wrote:
> 
> >On Dec 17, 2012, at 2:35 PM, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)
> ><rse at rfc-editor.org> wrote:
> >> Rather than get in to too much detail, I'm working on wording to the
> >> effect of "document has to be readable even if
> >> UTF-8 characters do not display properly".
> >
> >I thought Dave's proposed wording captured the distinction quite
> >accurately.   The text you are proposing appears to completely forbid the
> >use of UTF-8, since if UTF-8 doesn't display correctly, then clearly
> >the document isn't readable.
> 
> All ASCII-7 is valid UTF-8, so you'll want to be more clear.  Perhaps
> "codepoints greater than U+007F" would work.
> 
> --
> Joe Hildebrand
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list