[rfc-i] feedback on draft-hoffman-rfcformat-canon-others-00, was: RFC Format - final requirements and next steps

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Thu May 17 13:25:34 PDT 2012


On 2012-05-17 22:17, Joe Touch wrote:
>
>
> On 5/17/2012 1:11 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> On 2012-05-17 22:04, Joe Touch wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/17/2012 12:28 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> ...
>>>>> We probably also need to define what we expect happens to invalid
>>>>> sequences and "Private Use" sequences, or to prohibit their use as
>>>>> well.
>>>>
>>>> No, we don't need to discuss invalid documents. Just don't produce
>>>> them.
>>>> They are invalid.
>>>
>>> Private Use codes aren't invalid.
>>
>> Come on.
>>
>> They are "private use". Why would we want them inside a spec?
>
> 1) we could say that they're prohibited
>
> 2) we could define a use for them in RFCs and require their support
>
> My point with these and the control codes was that the doc had a small
> oversight - it should say "printable UTF8 excluding Private Use, and a
> fixed subset of control chars", not merely UTF8.

You are again confusing character encoding scheme with character repertoire.

> ...

Best regards, Julian


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list