[rfc-i] feedback on draft-hoffman-rfcformat-canon-others-00, was: RFC Format - final requirements and next steps
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
>>>> No, we don't need to discuss invalid documents. Just don't produce
>>>> 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