[rfc-i] New version: draft-hoffman-utf8-rfcs-04.txt

Joe Touch touch at ISI.EDU
Thu Nov 6 06:56:39 PST 2008

Hash: SHA1

Julian Reschke wrote:
> Tim Bray wrote:
>> ...
>> 4. Suggestion
>> I suggest that those RFC sections which currently impose the
>> ASCII-only restriction on I-Ds and RFCs no longer enjoy consensus
>> support among the community.  Not even rough consensus.  Not even
>> close. Could we examine that issue?
>> ...
> Good point, and agreed.

People are legitimately concerned with the lack of Internationalization
support in the IETF. However, we need to balance that concern with the
need for stability in an archival document series. I'm not hesitant to
change the series at all, but I am hesitant to use that series as a
non-incremental test case for this issue.

Consider that the attendees list supports internationalization. There
are 891 registered attendees. I see only 4 names in that list that
actually use internationalization, and none that use logograms (e.g.,
Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc. characters).

The current RFC series doesn't even support PS as a primary document
format, even though it has been around nearly twice as long as UTF-8 and
was first added to the process nearly 20 years ago. PDF, nearly the same
age as UTF-8, isn't supported either. Both formats not only allow
international characters, they allow more expressive figures, which
impacts all authors.

So let's keep this in perspective. The first goal MUST be to keep the
RFC series accessible. We can surely *test* this technique as alternate
and get the bugs out (e.g., file suffix, BOM use, etc.) before jumping
to its use as primary.

Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list