IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rfc-i] Unicode in xml2rfc v3

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Fri, 18 December 2020 13:02 UTC

Return-Path: <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44F353A046D; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 05:02:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (body has been altered)" header.d=gmx.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XmcvNXan_QAx; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 05:02:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A47693A046B; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 05:02:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56ABAF4074C; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 05:01:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Delivered-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 990CBF4074C for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 05:01:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Authentication-Results: rfcpa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=gmx.net
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rfcpa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fQY9aW7cK3HX for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 05:01:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.20]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 17664F40726 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 05:01:50 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1608296519; bh=jtVg6Rxsc3lhrtMUE3Mrbd4unBXYH8BR1IHnOkGksC0=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=VyCQMuRvf0GF8enEWi6BLELoeJF9vEfa705MJg4G4m/vMw2VSGYv2Vj7ChZ7zKA6e l0g5kwBMVuHTxQIyMJd0d0JsmlJJilz/9NiLqetteiyZz102D8SJ15BGHKcOPiYoGZ b1tKKSJpoi/iuqPZy2SwQIBqAaMzOZi3AZRsnSbU=
X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c
Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([84.171.154.217]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx105 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1Mwfac-1jtLLx1KN0-00yBpI for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 14:01:59 +0100
To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
References: <20201216184835.CE1CA2ABC7A1@ary.qy> <AF7F0885-2D39-4F8D-A43B-E1D015146EAE@eggert.org> <d6c1e22d-2711-166a-aa0f-da445014b8fd@gmx.de> <63f32d6a-0458-4a53-a39a-cbc97cd337e4@www.fastmail.com> <5FDB9105.5010501@btconnect.com> <89A6526D-A6F1-490A-9B31-D6F3BFE72FE1@tzi.org> <5FDCA5C6.9030805@btconnect.com>
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Message-ID: <046d4831-2ec4-be14-fd53-594ae46aead2@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2020 14:01:57 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5FDCA5C6.9030805@btconnect.com>
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:KwVFuqpRf9lOF9YObdGp/vaGMJhY5hKbs44rff+FGR98R36Csq6 sElVlKtBC3qJ4ni/QoRtAimLJKaDnEBhL/hAtEj0bFLsaw0iU4BAzAU73WUE77oTRD52n8H qhnam82hsWHwDi/e5JYlepdJ0FAofW7ZQRzbnpbl6eFB6CbDtglbLmqC0vnKSpS0PSnVpGj 5BEY3f7IQU2r4mdK03kow==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:T/6X+hkrShg=:y8/xf6rkHGowrok9nYr5rm Pg/gzJ5QHcr5j2JpQBS9Tr9eA6dsPTVOq/x05/g4di6A82dn4aGgmOhHjgTVnqZJKqI/grJiI zWqFRjSJlfuF8GelmODhEf51d4PlyPUWqfT7OogKrUPb7ZaNvC6GtV2cWR+41PjiUbxHgX2wW lWbIpWUSoyRd4lgYlNVDGKpumy1c0B18M4lvRvXYHPgJVvSSd3gnmCVPk6ID1hVtbfuOX1gFS nYENoZwUHLhLDciV0CuTert9Yzf7wfa2RbUinLbHCwmHLP/jr1+sUgkCJnzFAoqAO9krveVWi 4HKjG2UFXPH7Q1hbDkMtduWMawlMSIcIkGp8a6OxjrykPd0zxhl9C3C+eMfLj34twnyxAok4r 1/u9/EtP8uiRN0+Fsj9KX1iP6Y9ldvkcvuacPon7rAPaRkCagoGFAt7N2PuT8yx0gI9Gnwzse ZQB+QZanXq1Ym7RqHW/W/xjPUHDLguSFejnVliwbD6g8SYHECHV+Iloq6kp8EXOzzax7vWSWy tsTr7zJ9lY/QLRt4nMO1Wyxqhp61V2VMnGO03xwzKmT5z6WtHy1FISMxRRh2VmudwvVUDscQG KZyNZPazG2Xq0bFH+FrF7HHIC60QPb+V5uBjGvIUfqmwLqUtv4YahUkbzZN61h8uUBIS77Tlv 3b4tRwrLUXUfXhO4L1x7xmBCV/A6KXb//ubRc9EWvJSEC8H6gJXmVftmjs9PfeOJcQr8b4jNd jy2nLV8DCip8WBVkXdnzp19igY1Osf3j4FFTC22wYIYQSzjrTjglviQIbI/InLCjhrgnDTncr EVJdJ6n6ZV+RuTt/ECvhSYS5+vOVpn0hV9hkb66lO6iX0rFsUsIrq+kQz86Z4geOj8+5N3aXG fPbKeTgFOVl9aXLIeMeg==
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Unicode in xml2rfc v3
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <rfc-interest.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

Am 18.12.2020 um 13:51 schrieb tom petch:
> On 17/12/2020 17:25, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 2020-12-17, at 18:10, tom petch <daedulus@btconnect.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 17/12/2020 09:19, Martin Thomson wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Dec 17, 2020, at 19:15, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>>>> If we want to retain the requirement to use <u> for non-ASCII, another
>>>>> approach would be to relax <u> in a way that it does not insert
>>>>> anything
>>>>> automatically.
>>>>
>>>> In terms of signaling intent to use Unicode, as opposed to
>>>> accidental use (think things like smart quotes), <u> has some
>>>> virtues.  This would be a perfectly acceptable outcome to me.  A new
>>>> formatting option for <u> (a default ideally) would be my suggestion.
>>>
>>> Quotes are a pain in some IETF work.  There are a number of IETF WG
>>> who produce minutes of meetings where all quote characters appear as
>>> six hexadecimal digits.
>>
>> Pointers please.
>
>
> LSR, RTGWG

Ok, looked at <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-109-rtgwg/> and
didn't see anything.

Could you be more specific?

Best regards, Julian
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email