[rfc-i] Comments on draft-iab-rfcformatreq

Marc Blanchet marc.blanchet at viagenie.ca
Tue Dec 18 12:10:06 PST 2012

Le 2012-12-18 à 14:03, John Levine a écrit :

>>> Also it's not just about displaying correctly, there's issues of confusability
>> Just to be clear for everybody, an example is that something that looks
>> like "c" may or may not be the third letter of the Roman alphabet.
> True, but since RFCs are documents for people to read, so what?  (Am I
> the only person old enough to remember typewriters that didn't have a
> digit 1 because you used the letter l instead?)
> If the document is about script confusability, I would expect the text
> itself to point out the issue.  Or if it's code that you're supposed
> to cut and paste, the cutting will presumably pick up the correct
> thing.
> Something that we* need to face sooner rather than later is to decide
> whether there are enough people who still use equipment that can only
> display 95 character ASCII that we need to limit our documents to that
> character set, or perhaps make some other accomodation such as downgraded
> display versions that call out non-ASCII characters.

I agree with that direction. have one version (non-normative) published which is ASCII-only/text.


> R's,
> John
> * - i.e., Heather
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list