<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Brian E Carpenter wrote:<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:48EAAD45.email@example.com" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Thanks for conducting such an extensive and pragmatic test sequence. It
is exactly these sorts of combinatorial toss-and-eat activities for
which the core representation of RFCs have been famously robust. I've
understood that robustness as being a continuing requirement.
By my reading of your results, your test demonstrates that raw UTF-8
produces unpredictable and/or undesirable outcomes with common tools.
Hence it fails the requirement.
I think it would be interesting to hear similar results from MacOS and
Linux regular users, not to mention Vista users. I'd love to see the
proposal being practicable, but it does seem to have issues.
agreed. (I'll see if I can find time later this evening, but someone
else might beat me to it)<br>
it would also be interesting, as a "control" of sorts, to try the same
exercise with a normal ASCII RFC.<br>
I would add printing to the list of things that should be tried. (or
am I the only one who still finds it useful to render RFCs in dead-tree
format and mark them up with pen?)<br>