IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rfc-i] Unicode in xml2rfc v3

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Thu, 17 December 2020 08:15 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 0AB153A10E5; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 00:15:45 -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 V7ZIrAYW1Cd6; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 00:15:43 -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 653FA3A1084; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 00:15:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 122EFF40721; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 00:15:35 -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 7AA37F40721 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 00:15:34 -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 tFsVFiYu1NiR for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 00:15:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.22]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA09DF40705 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 00:15:29 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1608192934; bh=S8T1woNUXvjKth4rQGMG/cvBGcIbwdGXQxQGHwlBYwQ=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=L3WoEBq2JLB+9A9ZT70K5crtpNzZOajCavsalhGkwAp/dktwD+wtxnNPQQHv5S/C2 skVpv0ytUSIgAcYbc0udikQg/gwagENEbc62HFOrQP+I5xcYI+3ElNqi6sFCmAshHt sfnbiq9xBCfBxrIA0a7DW6hoAh6xq/6WCrM0ULHs=
X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c
Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([84.171.155.208]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx105 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MNKlu-1kR7fA0eqY-00Or4q for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 09:15:34 +0100
To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
References: <20201216184835.CE1CA2ABC7A1@ary.qy> <AF7F0885-2D39-4F8D-A43B-E1D015146EAE@eggert.org>
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Message-ID: <d6c1e22d-2711-166a-aa0f-da445014b8fd@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2020 09:15:32 +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: <AF7F0885-2D39-4F8D-A43B-E1D015146EAE@eggert.org>
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:GzbIW5+7KuXg5C2kvemyi6br8Q6oZ1yUcV/lc7XEy+OwVwbTzSd ZAwRgPUkDPCGp96ly88syind3cqyo4rDeuQU+EDzo6gTom66MCqa3ErZGjx02ZnN7mvUHGo 4LfSrEVZNL3PfUAeqBxDd0hv/1/MLE6O5UJpbTmooNuTM77NzVMma3wZDdbIBm6Fd/EWGrh Oz/PwWs7KgLo24GkMg+MQ==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:Q/+eR/CtBzw=:vXx8yBSwM9kaBv27Y0diR9 z+uzNU0/bNxG2VWbQYxYCqfPOnT67welJDwN13G/lryb7xXfWqOZWxw5VcpJDxIKZHkEDG7IR VHoMjEr/SX4hcrVnL+hgZs7u/ezoa7+VIxlGdOFLNaANH/wNp++L93/JKYsm82NTJya6h9OT7 e0DEu30+n9LVkkYrdQcE3VmY0HVfhD7VzTRVAayalGEP/yz6wRra4zFJYmhh8khTWMVPkhrth GEtGGjeewLNQMBoqIPeO0bu51Y3jzBtLbV0L3fGqtyZ3RnjLunhflfLaaHecCKbpH8bhPoX9U 1XKuTcYG3pORejq5s5r1V0k4AAxtAPVCHOWUQXbetAF6081aDMU5cTzBPJXAUcrcsEGu88khx 7Jx61RxIhsSHpx84uUm7m/bzMGnRdLdKBLUmx+waxg2AkkV11mQp1iqviTWLMaT+wbnSpw7So 8DuMYaXQYdL7Rl1tL0uJN0B0kZdKv20FdEPhghiWKyCbmcj0IjCOhvOQUjakBl3bExzuFw4// fjkSFMoCuvzjpp9/ahAlrE/v6+Vs+Jr3xFKqSNNexW4jjbdKkRXDm/d/imPKMIDP6T2g6olRz WX0ecLv/qy9YUbdRUFcZb7+O2SP+NNojKI4S7OiX5/52QAVYjNfSB4jJQDsRdP5AFj7L/FEnI I9e5Jpn/2tpVYshw90hLZeEG6wDG78a+1Qu7TfdP5J92F5xMq/PBT3P3/uCKPnRY8t2/whxbl NB0ErRxTrH/Vx18bIzshHZhqnVWECso2lg/IqDqOI6Nwo8S8TjfGvu/OX+Qi324G/x7eJqiqI XHqqxER/uuZuxgmiPq0e0m0UIIOWt0UedWVrzqcTu3SB0jBvgHXPI8U3jK0T+uSuQ988PNhzx 41kMfm6k1ZUy+/zijkUw==
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 17.12.2020 um 07:57 schrieb Lars Eggert:
> Hi,
>
> On 2020-12-16, at 20:48, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>> In article <BB864858-1E71-45CF-9411-2ECB003B5EC0@eggert.org> you write:
>>> It's ridiculous that I can't just write α when I mean α.
>>
>> I agree with you but I don't yet see how we get from here to there or exactly
>> where there is.
>
> I think it was Julian who proposed to lift the restriction on Unicode to only be allowed in <contact> and instead rely on the community (at the I-D stage) and the IESG/ISE/RPC for when I-Ds become RFCs to check for "abuse" of Unicode (which I struggle to see happening in practice.)

That is technically the easiest approach, and what the design team
actually had in mind (not that <u> was introduced after RFC 7991 was
published).

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.

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