[rfc-i] Request for feedback: the new CSS

Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) rse at rfc-editor.org
Thu Dec 15 09:38:54 PST 2016

On 12/2/16 2:58 AM, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
> #11: Duplication of alternate address info in header unnecessary for
> Latin script
> This may not be a CSS issue; if not, please reroute.
> I have tried to explain this many times, and I was under the expression
> that I was successful, but apparently not:
> "ɟ. H̭ildebrand (J. Hildebrand)" and "Čisco Śystems, Inc. (Cisco Systems,
> Inc.)" in the header look totally silly, not because they are
> constructed examples, but because they are useless overkill, different
> from any other serious publisher going back centuries.
> Please fix.

Where I ended up with this was to say that extended Latin without the
parenthetical ASCII equivalent is ok in company names. It is not (yet)
OK for person names. This is me being conservative and wanting to be
absolutely clear re: person names, which allowing a bit of
experimentation with company names. I recognize that other publishers
don't treat this kind of thing the same way. We will adapt over time as
technology evolves and this guidance re: using nonASCII characters in
RFCs will almost certainly evolve too.

The characters must work for more than just browsers, and I'm having
rather mixed results with text readers for even extended latin characters.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list