[rfc-i] Character sets, was Comments on draft-iab-rfcformat
sm at resistor.net
Wed Dec 19 23:59:33 PST 2012
At 16:54 19-12-2012, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
>I am also curious as to why more individuals have not chosen this
>option, but I don't think there is enough information to assign a
>conclusion. My own perception is that it could be people just don't
>realize that option, OR they feel it's more of a hoop than they want
>to jump through given all the other things they've done to get the I-D
>to an RFC publication, OR there is not a need.
>In terms of additional options, I suspect people do want more than
>just the very very plain text given how popular the datatracker html
>version of the RFCs are, as judged by how often I see the datatracker
>version referenced in various bibliographies rather than the
I would say that the www.ietf.org links have a
higher ranking for (IETF) RFCs compared to the
rfc-editor.org version. tools.ietf.org is also
commonly used. This may be due to the well-known
search engine effect as it comes up first in the
search results. The commonly used format on the
web would be the html version of RFCs.
At 21:26 19-12-2012, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
>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 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.
More information about the rfc-interest