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

Joel M. Halpern jmh at joelhalpern.com
Tue Dec 18 14:06:20 PST 2012

If I am reading this right, there are two related bu distinct issues 
related to extended character sets.
On the one side, there are cases where we need such characters.  We need 
to be clear about what those cases are, and why, if only so folks can 
understand the tradeoffs we are making.
On the other side, the RFC has to be readable and understandable by 
folks who may not have scrips for some characters installed, or who may 
not be easily able t distinguish subtle differences in characters within 
the script.  (It is hard enough to read English some days.)

And, the rules, guidelines, and approach have to be able to be stated 
reasonably simply, or folks know what the heck is going on.


On 12/18/2012 5:00 PM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote:
> On 12/18/12 1:10 PM, "Marc Blanchet" <marc.blanchet at viagenie.ca> wrote:
>> I agree with that direction. have one version (non-normative) published
>> which is ASCII-only/text.
> As long as we agree that this version can be ugly in as many ways as are
> convenient for the RFC editor, I'm +1.

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list