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

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Thu May 17 13:41:11 PDT 2012

On 2012-05-17 22:37, Joe Touch wrote:
> On 5/17/2012 1:25 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> On 2012-05-17 22:17, Joe Touch wrote:
>>> 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.
>> You are again confusing character encoding scheme with character
>> repertoire.
> As does the doc to which I refer:
> o The text encoding for the document is UTF-8. The RFC Editor can
> decide where it is and is not appropriate to use non-ASCII
> characters in the RFC. For example, the RFC Editor might make
> rules about using non-ASCII characters in people's names,
> reference titles, examples in text, and so on.
> The first sentence is about encoding. The rest is about limiting the
> subset of the encoding that is permitted, but it is insufficient.

The second sentence is about the character repertoire, but the 
distinction could be made clearer.

> And it's not the character repertoire that concerns me; it is the
> control repertoire.

Control characters are characters.

Best regards, Julian

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list