[rfc-i] Comments on draft-iab-rfcformatreq
Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)
jhildebr at cisco.com
Tue Dec 18 16:25:21 PST 2012
I think what I suggested last time is we say that authors should be
reasonable, and leave it to the RSE acting with expert advice to decide
what constitutes "reasonable" on an ongoing basis.
The hobbling of some output formats isn't because I don't want those
formats to be "good", but because I want the RSE to be able to make
reasonable tradeoffs on time to market, quality, and cost, and because I
don't want the format that most people will consume to be significantly
less useful because of the needs of those alternate formats.
On 12/18/12 5:10 PM, "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh at joelhalpern.com> wrote:
>Accents may or ma not be 99% prevalent. Equally, I am sure that there
>are unicode elements which are missing from 99% of deployed machines.
>Trying to make rules around the likely prevalence of representability of
>individual code points in widely deployed scripts seems a recipe for
>On 12/18/2012 7:06 PM, John R Levine wrote:
>>> In the draft you point to, would it suffice if you could include the
>>> actual unicode character in the parenthesis (preferably along with the
>>> description, but that seems to be a minor detail.) If so, that would
>>> seem to preserve readability if some script elements are missing,
>>> while having enhanced value when they are resent.
>> Sure, but if it turns out that only 1% of the people reading RFCs are
>> using devices that can't display accented characters, I think it'd make
>> more sense just to show the accented characters and do some hack to
>> insert descriptions or something for people stuck with those old ttys.
>> John Levine, johnl at taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
>> "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.
>rfc-interest mailing list
>rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest