IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rfc-i] Unicode in xml2rfc v3

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Thu, 17 December 2020 17:26 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 C0C393A0E26; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 09:26:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.65
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.65 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 WJTqt4B20Web; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 09:26:07 -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 E5C6A3A0E18; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 09:26:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4E65F40745; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 09:25:57 -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 6A5AEF40745 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 09:25:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.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 lwo6J3zH5PXA for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 09:25:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DCE9AF40741 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 09:25:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.217.118] (p548dca87.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.202.135]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4Cxf6H1V0KzySV; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 18:25:59 +0100 (CET)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <5FDB9105.5010501@btconnect.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2020 18:25:58 +0100
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 629918758.713359-77c5a5f18cad6d0c9bd5fd40002e3282
Message-Id: <89A6526D-A6F1-490A-9B31-D6F3BFE72FE1@tzi.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>
To: tom petch <daedulus@btconnect.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
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: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>


> 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.

Mistakes like these will never survive the RFC editor so I don’t think they add any additional consideration.

Grüße, Carsten

_______________________________________________
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