Sample of an {{:design:future-unpag-20130820.txt|unpaginated text RFC}}

New features include:
  - An RFC Editor note indicating that the document contains information that do not render in ASCII
    - If there is no additional information/artwork, then it seems there should be a PI or attribute in the XML file to make the note appear or not appear.
    - Does there need to be distinct RFC Editor notes for the three possible cases: an RFC with one or more images, and RFC with one or more scripts, or an RFC with both images and scripts?
  - Sample text if an image were to be included
    - When current ASCII-only RFCs contain images such that they must point to a PDF version that contains all the content, they do not have individual pointers to each image; they point to the entire PDF version.  Currently suggesting we point to the info pages as the reference point for all images, rather than to a specific image file.  This way we do not need to keep separate image pointers live and readers can choose the publication format of their choice.
  - An author name with Cyrillic script alternative
    - There are strong arguments for listing the unicode symbols where non-ASCII characters are used in a document; this becomes a consideration particularly when we allow non-ASCII characters in examples and/or other areas of the text (outside Author's Addresses).  What kind of checking would we need to make that happen?  (see [[http://www.rfc-editor.org/rse/FormatFAQ.html#8]])
    - Can we call this a plain text file if we're allowing alternate scripts anywhere?  Or should those be left out of this format?
  - Note a change in section ordering (Acknowledgments is immediately before Author's Address and is unnumbered, as per Style Guide draft [[http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-flanagan-style-01.txt]])


Testing readability of non-ASCII script
  - MacOS 10.7.5 Terminal - ok
  - Firefox 23.0 - ok