[rfc-i] feedback on draft-hoffman-rfcformat-canon-others-00, was: RFC Format - final requirements and next steps

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Thu May 17 13:17:48 PDT 2012

On 5/17/2012 1:11 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2012-05-17 22:04, Joe Touch wrote:
>> On 5/17/2012 12:28 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> ...
>>>> We probably also need to define what we expect happens to invalid
>>>> sequences and "Private Use" sequences, or to prohibit their use as
>>>> well.
>>> No, we don't need to discuss invalid documents. Just don't produce them.
>>> They are invalid.
>> Private Use codes aren't invalid.
> Come on.
> They are "private use". Why would we want them inside a spec?

1) we could say that they're prohibited

2) we could define a use for them in RFCs and require their support

My point with these and the control codes was that the doc had a small 
oversight - it should say "printable UTF8 excluding Private Use, and a 
fixed subset of control chars", not merely UTF8.

Fixing this is simple and probably easy to reach consensus on quickly, 
it's just that the current doc is insufficient by just referring to UTF8 
without any caveats.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list