[rfc-i] Data point [Re: Fwd:I-D ACTION:draft-hoffman-utf8-rfcs-03.txt]

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Tue Oct 7 12:19:13 PDT 2008

Joe Touch wrote:
>>> I have no similar path for UTF-8, at least not yet - the tools I use
>>> today that preserve page boundaries (only Wordpad) fails on UTF-8  - it
>>> renders them fine on the screen, but when I print them, they are
>>> corrupted (they print as if the content is ASCII).
>> So, the inability of your preferred tool chain to produce UTF-8 is a
>> reason not to *allow* it?
> I've shown you that the one I currently use does not. Show me a tool
> chain that works.

xml2rfc will be made to work if we decide that we want to.

>> Keep in mind that nobody is *requiring* use of UTF-8 (that would be
>> silly anyway because any given ASCII text/plain document *is* a UTF-8
>> text/plain document by definition).
> If you allow the use, and disable my ability to view and print them and
> preserve line/page breaks, you've broken functionality I have with ASCII.

You can view and print them with a browser. Why isn't that sufficient?

>> I think it's totally acceptable to allow an extension that helps with
>> I18N, even if one of the tools in use to produce RFCs doesn't support it.
> "one of the tools" is not the issue; the issue is:
> - - is there a writing tool for each major platform we currently use?
> 	so I can't see how to generate a useful tool for Windows that
> 	will generate UTF-8. that itself is not a deal-breaker,
> 	since we have stone-age tools that do work (xml2rfc).

We apparently disagree on the merits of xml2rfc. Calling it "stone-age" 
doesn't help in this discussion.

We will make the "stone-age" tool generate UTF-8. If that's possible, I 
would assume that it should be possible to adapt more "modern" tools as 

> - - is there a reading/printing tool for each major platform, and even
> some minor ones, that works?
> 	that, IMO, is the deal-breaker.

You can view and print them with a browser (either online or after 
running a simple conversion script locally). Why isn't that sufficient?

BR, Julian

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list