[rfc-i] Character sets, was Comments on draft-iab-rfcformat
"Martin J. Dürst"
duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
Wed Dec 19 21:26:57 PST 2012
On 2012/12/20 2:07, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> A couple of minor aspects worth noting:
> 1) There are RFCs which are not from IETF WGs approed by the IESG.
> 2) The RFC Editor is specifically harged wit keeping a coherent series.
> Saying that each document can do whatever it (the authors, and whomever
> they can persuade at the time) wants is not a recipe for coherence.
Indeed, but if the coherent principle is that the needs of the document
dominate, then the series will be coherent to the extent possible.
If (hypothetical example) the IRTF stream or the IAB stream decides that
they have to write a document about some aspects of classical Tibetan,
or the independent stream decides to accept such a document, then they
will probably want to use classical Tibetan examples.
If it's a document about routing, in any of the streams, then on the
other hand, the need for non-ASCII characters will be extremely low.
If there is a need for some generic non-ASCII examples, then we should
expect the author(s) to choose some that are easy enough to distinguish
and have a high probability glyphs being available for rendering.
If it's a character in a name, then it will be just the character the
name is written with. We should be able to leave it to the author to
decide how much of a risk that their names is garbled they want to take.
They are probably also in a better position to judge that than a
third-party entity, although they may have some local bias.
So as I have said before, and Tim Bray and others have said too, letting
authors (together with reviewers,...) choose what is most appropriate
will work best.
More information about the rfc-interest