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

Joe Touch touch at ISI.EDU
Fri Nov 7 07:32:04 PST 2008

Hash: SHA1

Julian Reschke wrote:
> Joe Touch wrote:
>>> Any hard numbers about it? Guesses are not allowed. Remember that RFC
>>> authors are not representative of the general computer users.
>>> Anecdotal evidence: when you are at an IETF meeting, in the back of
>>> the room, and you look forward, most of the laptops run Unix.
>> The issue with interpreting .utf8 or BOM is primarily a reader issue,
>> not an author issue. I agree that RFC authors are primarily IETF
>> attendees (though you ought to cite statistics on that if you require me
>> to back up my assertions as well), but RFC readers are probably not
>> primarily RFC attendees (do we really need to dig those numbers out? or
>> can we just agree on that?)
> I do agree that most consumers of RFCs do not attend IETF meetings.
> However I do disagree that the statistics on OS usage apply to the
> typical consumer of an RFC; the percentage of MacOSX and Linux users
> will be much higher.
> That being said -- it shouldn't matter. Indeed, support for Unicode in
> general and UTF-8 in text files in particular probably is better on
> Windows then elsewhere.

The standard included Windows text editor doesn't react properly to
UTF-8 (changing fonts mid-stream, e.g.). If that's the best reaction to
UTF-8 we have, that doesn't bode well for this transition.

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


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list