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

Joe Touch touch at ISI.EDU
Wed Oct 8 12:56:13 PDT 2008

Hash: SHA1

Dave CROCKER wrote:
> Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
>>> Sorry - I thought the generation was dynamic for the following:
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/rfcmarkup?rfc=793
> the markup tool is great.  fixing bugs in it is fine.
> but what does anything about it really have to do with discussion of
> utf8 encoding as a native RFC format?

We have been exploring the validity of the assertion, in
draft-hoffman-utf8, that:

"Now that UTF-8 [RFC3629] is nearly universally available in text-
editing and display systems, the IETF can eliminate these problems by
allowing RFCs to use UTF-8."

If that assertion is not generally agreed, for some definition of
"nearly universally available" - or even, if relaxed - "sufficiently
universally available" - then this proposal cannot move forward.

To that end:

I have argued that:

1. a UTF-8 document standard needs to include FF, LF
	there appears to be consensus on this,
	so let's assume it for the rest of the items

2. we cannot proceed without useful tools:
(many tools/scripts may require minor revision to support UTF-8;
let's assume that)

	a) to generate UTF-8

	xml2rfc appears to be viable

	the Word template can be used, but
	only if the final output is hand-edited
	to restore the UTF-8 characters in desired locations

	b) to read UTF-8

	c) to print UTF-8
	(honoring the FF and LF characters)

We've been exploring 2b and 2c, with rfcmarkup proposed for (2c). My
current claim is that "nearly universally available" is overstated -
what we have is, at best, a few existence proofs. The question is
whether sufficient universality has been achieved.

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


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list