[rfc-i] Comments on draft-iab-rfcformatreq
paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Tue Dec 18 14:27:17 PST 2012
On Dec 18, 2012, at 2:06 PM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh at joelhalpern.com> wrote:
> If I am reading this right, there are two related bu distinct issues related to extended character sets.
> On the one side, there are cases where we need such characters. We need to be clear about what those cases are, and why, if only so folks can understand the tradeoffs we are making.
> On the other side, the RFC has to be readable and understandable by folks who may not have scrips for some characters installed, or who may not be easily able t distinguish subtle differences in characters within the script. (It is hard enough to read English some days.)
There seem to be a third issue. People talk about "the RFC has to be readable" even though there is agreement that there will be multiple non-canonical versions of "the RFC" in different formats. Some people are talking about hobbling all the non-canonical versions, and some people are talking about hobbling only some of them.
More information about the rfc-interest