[rfc-i] Bug in RFC Search page...
tte+ietf at cs.fau.de
Sun Oct 1 18:57:23 PDT 2017
Most users would not even be able to figure out why something is not diplsayed
right with some tool unless they have some easy way to map the problem to
some type of content that they are aware of. Therefore such a header
would get very useful content information.
On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 10:41:46AM +0900, Martin J. D?rst wrote:
> On 2017/09/27 06:57, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> >There is a lot of tool chains out there that will not render UTF-8 correctly,
> >therefore it is IMHO extremely viable to have a clear indication of the
> >minimum toolchain features required to render a document correctly (in the first
> >page header of an RFC wold be great).
> First, most of the 'toolchain' doesn't render anything, and for most
> purposes, will just pass through UTF-8 if it passes through all 8
> Second, rendering usually works so that there might be something
> illegible, but the rest of the document (in ASCII) isn't affected.
> And the guidelines by the RFC editor are designed so that the
> document can still be read in such a case.
> Third, I think overall it's much easier to fix the remaining tool
> chains than to have everybody be detracted by additional
> distinctions that should be irrelevant in this day and age.
> Regards, Martin.
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest