[rfc-i] How lack of Unicode support in IDs is detrimental to design

Andrew Sullivan ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
Fri Jul 27 15:05:41 PDT 2012

On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 02:34:57PM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
> I am not understanding what it is that makes UTF-8 more special than
> IP or TCP binary headers, or ASN.1 encodings or...

As Phill pointed out already in this thread, normally the UTF-8
portions of a protocol are protocol elements that are user-facing.
That's different to the examples you give. 
> It's not that UTF-8 support in RFCs is a bad idea, it's that
> claiming that its absence is a serious problem is.

User-facing portions of protocols don't seem to me a place where we've
been super successful, so that's a reason I think it's a problem.
Internationalization has been a persistent thorn, also, and that's
another reason I think it's a problem.

I think this point has been made often enough on this list that I
can't see how repeating it more is useful.  Those who are remotely
amenable to argument have already been convinced, and everybody else
has already made up their minds.  So this is the last I'll say on the



Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list