Re: [rfc-i] [Tools-discuss] <contact/>: asciiFullname should be latinFullname

Hi Henrik,

I was trying to respond to Julian here.

> On 2020-10-07, at 17:01, Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com> wrote:
> 
> As for what 7991 is really talking about, interpreting 'ASCII' as
> “accessible to a reader familiar with the Latin writing system”, rather
> than strictly ASCII, I'll leave that interpretation as yours.  That's not
> the understanding I got from 7991.

Me neither, in particular with the example in the companion 7997 that gave an ASCII-only “identifier” (cleverly avoiding the transliteration/transcription dilemma) for a Latin name.  However, it seems to me that it simply didn’t occur to the people involved in the process that led to RFC 799x that transliterations tend to use beyond-ASCII characters (or they considered pure-ASCIIness more important).

> I indicated earlier that I thought expanding the use use of Latin to
> the case you raised was reasonable, but it seems that response wasn't
> enough for you, so now I have no idea of how to respond.

No, I totally agree with your response.  I just tried to answer Julian’s question.

So we do need a bit of a variance here from RFC 7991.  We could do that the same way all the other variances have been handled (such as introducing the <contact/> element that didn't exist in RFC 7991 either).  Or we could somehow convince ourselves this is suddenly a major change (e.g., because the attributes are called “ascii”something they really should stay ASCII-only).  I don’t think it is, but if I could post to the rfc-interest list, I would love to hear whether people there agree, too.

Grüße, Carsten

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