[rfc-i] More problems with ASCII conversion
paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Thu Mar 27 07:27:33 PDT 2014
On Mar 26, 2014, at 10:15 PM, Martin J. Dürst <duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote:
> On 2014/03/12 09:05, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> In 4.1.1, the second paragraph needs to say what happens for authors who have non-ASCII characters in their name. Proposal: "Authors' names that cannot be represented in ASCII are first Romanized, then normalized to be ASCII-only. This rule is likely to change in the future."
> This is to detailed and potentially wrong.
Correct. I'm trying to come up with good wording for a very flawed rule.
> Some authors e.g. from Honk Kong may want to add a Latin first name if they use one.
That is true for people well beyond Hong Kong.
> When taking my family name, Romanization is a no-op (Dürst → Dürst), and 'normalization' to be only ASCII can be read as removing the dots to get Durst, which would be wrong.
"Normalized to ASCII-only" can be read as many things, most of them wrong. ü→u is wrong for you and right for other people; ü→ue is right for you and wrong for other people. That is why this whole section is terribly flawed.
> Why not just say that (as long as we publish ASCII-only) authors have to supply this information? I'd assume we can trust authors to get their own names correct :-).
That would be better, yes. However, given the extreme phobia that the RFC Editor has around this topic, if the IAB is not willing to add that to the Style Guide, they still need to say exactly what rule they are going to use.
More information about the rfc-interest