[rfc-i] Resetting this format debate a bit
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Sun Mar 25 22:35:54 PDT 2012
On 2012-03-26 03:18, Joe Touch wrote:
> Regarding your suggestion that there are three threads here...
> On 3/25/2012 11:00 AM, Tim Bray wrote:
>> I had a useful conversation offline with Dave Crocker which helped me
>> to understand that there are at least two, probably three
>> conversations, mixed up here.
>> 1. There are some people who want a grand glorious future in which
>> RFCs can feature rich semantic markup to facilitate automated
>> processing, typographical enhancements such as the use of
>> color/bold/italic, and embedded multimedia.
> I've been confused by the need for tagged data in RFCs. The key
> information of note is already provided in a (generally separate) index
> - which can be, should be, and already is tagged (i.e., rfc-index).
> Excepting title, date, stream, state, obsoletes, and author (all in
> rfc-index), I'm not clear that there are useful tags elsewhere in RFCs
> at all.
Code fragments for validation. References to other specs. ...
>> 2. There are those who are irritated about the limitations imposed by
>> the ASCII character set, particularly while we’re trying to define
>> Internet protocols that need to carry international payloads, and
>> credit contributors with non-ASCII names.
> I had thought these were both permitted (and the only non-ASCII
No, they are not permitted.
Best regards, Julian
More information about the rfc-interest