IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rfc-i] Unicode in xml2rfc v3

Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> Thu, 17 December 2020 16:58 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 E08043A0DBA; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 08:58:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.45
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, 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=eggert.org
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 IV5veTq4VZQa; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 08:58:48 -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 1D3A73A08C3; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 08:58:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37E3CF40737; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 08:58:39 -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 B150BF40737 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 08:58:37 -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=eggert.org
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 n0OV7mpJSMpv for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 08:58:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.eggert.org (mail.eggert.org [91.190.195.94]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EBAF0F40721 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 08:58:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:9c2a:72d4:d370:30c8] (unknown [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:9c2a:72d4:d370:30c8]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.eggert.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6A1766014B5; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 18:58:35 +0200 (EET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=eggert.org; s=dkim; t=1608224315; bh=8VWNmxqG9ZYkpLmwQqGUufXCgLdDeyxkFeQcqe87EMw=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References; b=hSpClPK9kS/D9YWqTHJrQedp05CVMdcPuM2HkndRbHyzlTfGzNsNXPk7RqPLUlElt ZQr0T7mS46WnAI8JxhlrLCoaMzDl674w43GCAYHPYBMEsJilQakYtNSxA/5+WaCmPf i0KaBq2BP+C3ao4pN9pF5G8bxRaY3EZAAPfzKfNE=
From: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
Message-Id: <CEF858E8-023A-4AEA-AAC6-1EC1246D147E@eggert.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.40.0.2.32\))
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2020 18:58:30 +0200
In-Reply-To: <2fb0b749-8d33-c5b2-39dd-8f351cdfac0@taugh.com>
To: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
References: <20201216184835.CE1CA2ABC7A1@ary.qy> <AF7F0885-2D39-4F8D-A43B-E1D015146EAE@eggert.org> <2fb0b749-8d33-c5b2-39dd-8f351cdfac0@taugh.com>
X-MailScanner-ID: 6A1766014B5.AFCF1
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: lars@eggert.org
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>
Cc: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============9092788272887412481=="
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

On 2020-12-17, at 18:51, John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
> In general I agree but I would like some guardrails about codepoints and combinations that are unlikely or obscure and likely not to render reliably.
> 
> And, of course, there are emoji.

How likely is it that someone would try to actually use any of these, and if they did, someone wouldn't notice at some point and call it out?

In other words, is it really worth doing this? Or are those guardrails so simple that it's straightforward to do this?

Thanks,
Lars

_______________________________________________
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