[rfc-i] open issues: character encoding of names

Yoav Nir ynir at checkpoint.com
Thu May 31 12:48:51 PDT 2012

No, I think providing an English transliteration should be mandatory, although it's up to Sally to decide whether it's "Mueller" or "Muller". 

I should not give you only "יואב ניר" because (1) it will give you no idea who wrote the draft and how to say my name, and (2) the font you use to display the document may not contain glyphs for these characters. In fact, I'm sure some of you reading this mail are seeing them incorrectly.

We might relax this where it's a simple accent, such as for most European languages, because most fonts support those, but if you have Cyrillic, Greek, Hebrew, Arabic, Chinese, or Japanese characters in your name, you need to give us a hint on how to pronounce it.


On May 31, 2012, at 8:58 PM, Tim Bray wrote:

> Yep, hard to argue with.  I assume it would be optional, so if Sally
> Müller finds Mueller offensive, she doesn’t *have* to provide it.
> -T
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at stpeter.im> wrote:
>> +1, well said, and thanks for starting individual threads.
>> On 5/31/12 11:47 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> In response to the RSE's suggestion that individual topics marked as
>>> not having consensus get discussion, I thought I'd pick a few and
>>> respond to them in independent threads.
>>> This message is about the item, "Need broader character encoding for
>>> author names".
>>> The argument for encoding author names with characters outside the
>>> ASCII range is that this allows us to spell people's names correctly.
>>> The argument against it is, apparently, that people who don't speak
>>> the language of the author won't be able to read the author's name.
>>> Therefore, a transliteration of the author's name into English is
>>> required.  This is appropriate, it is argued, because the language of
>>> the IETF is English.
>>> Each of these has some merit, but it seems to me that there is no
>>> justification for not providing both facilities, since there is
>>> certainly no technical impediment.  Therefore, in my view, it is
>>> desirable to provide this facility, and to do so with a transliterated
>>> English form of the name (and address and other contact data) as
>>> required.  The latter extends to fallback mail addresses for cases
>>> where the EAI extensions are not available, and to A-label forms of DNS
>>> names for those who cannot use the U-label form.
>>> As someone whose name is easily spelled in English without any
>>> characters outside the ASCII range, I don't feel personally strongly
>>> about this, but I am supportive of any action that allows authors to
>>> write their own names correctly according to their local custom.  I
>>> would like to understand the reasons why it would not be acceptable to
>>> do this in combination with a transliteration into English.
>>> Best regards,
>>> A
>> _______________________________________________
>> rfc-interest mailing list
>> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
> Scanned by Check Point Total Security Gateway.

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list