[rfc-i] comments on "Format FAQ"
Jeff.Hodges at KingsMountain.com
Wed Feb 19 09:27:28 PST 2014
Andrew Sullivan helpfully offered..
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 04:40:04PM -0800, =JeffH wrote:
>> > Several questions remain regarding the inclusion of UTF-8 characters
>> "UTF-8 characters" is a misnomer and misleading/confusing.
>> it should be "(non-ASCII) Unicode characters" in this sentence.
> Humph. Maybe. You're right that the terminology is confusing.
> Maybe the better way would be to say "Unicode characters" and then
> have a question and answer along these lines:
> Unicode characters can be encoded in multiple ways. What
> encodings with the RFC Editor accept?
> The RFC Editor will only accept files encoded as UTF-8.
> Does that help?
yes, that works for me thanks (modulo Julian's comments below).
> Why does the encoding matter, as long as it is a common one
> and declared properly?
that's a good point, but perhaps only valid for those submission formats
that feature unambiguous character set encoding declaration (eg:
xml)...hm...it appears from  that nroff can support Unicode chars
embedded in various fashions in its source files.
Perhaps the RSE will need to mandate an encoding for other submission
formats, such as plain text.
> And what files are we talking about? Plain text? XML?
AFAICT we're talking about "submission format" files, and in my recent
nosing around I don't see any proposed deviation from the current submission
format state that's documented in RFC6949
Submission format: the format submitted to the RFC Editor for
editorial revision and publication
* Currently: formatted plain text (required), XML (optional),
 Heirloom Documentation Tools: Nro/Tro User’s Manual; Joseph F. Ossanna
Brian W. Kernighan\,Gunnar Ritter; 2007
More information about the rfc-interest