[rfc-i] Comments on draft-iab-rfcformatreq
Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Mon Dec 17 23:54:19 PST 2012
On 18/12/2012 01:36, Dave Thaler wrote:
> Also it's not just about displaying correctly, there's issues of confusability
Just to be clear for everybody, an example is that something that looks
like "c" may or may not be the third letter of the Roman alphabet.
> 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"
Even that bothers me a bit, because what will be the effect (say) of
some bi-di characters (e.g. Arabic) placed elsewhere in the document?
I suspect this cannot be boiled down to a few words, and needs to be
described at greater length as draft-hoffman-utf8-rfcs attempted to do.
>> -----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
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest