[rfc-i] Character sets, was Comments on draft-iab-rfcformat

John Levine johnl at taugh.com
Wed Dec 19 18:55:34 PST 2012

>I am also curious as to why more individuals have not chosen this
>option, but I don't think there is enough information to assign a
>conclusion.  My own perception is that it could be people just don't
>realize that option, OR they feel it's more of a hoop than they want
>to jump through given all the other things they've done to get the I-D
>to an RFC publication, OR there is not a need.

Speaking only for myself, the main reason is that I didn't realize it
was an option.

Now that I do realize it's an option, I'd say the main deterrent is a
lack of tools.  From comments in recent PDF RFCs, I see that 5059 was
produced using groff, 5317 by Mac Word, 5598 by Apache FOP, and 6687
with LaTeX and some add-ons.  While I'm perfectly capable of making
groff do whatever I need it to, and FOP looks like it'd be fun to
learn if I had some spare time and might be interesting to try to plug
into the back of xml2rfc, neither seems like a great use of my time
until I need to do an RFC that just won't make any sense without
complex graphics and non-Latin text.

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list