Re: [rfc-i] Unicode in xml2rfc v3

On 12/19/20 1:54 PM, John Levine wrote:
> In article <162b0211-bc98-d0c8-b67f-c3068664b9f9@petit-huguenin.org> you write:
>> Because non-ASCII characters cannot improve a well-written RFC -- or a well-written program for that matter.
>> Graphics and diagrams in place of formal descriptions (in ASCII) are also signs of the sloppiness of the
>> authors -- or at least of the little faith they have on their implementers.
> 
> I HAVE TO ASK.  HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT LOWER CASE?  ASCII GOT ALONG WITHOUT IT FOR
> QUITE A WHILE.
> 

I care exclusively about specifications that can be implemented as interoperable programs.  The minimal formulation for such specifications is a dependent type, which can be always be expressed in ASCII.

I'd rather get an RFC prepared on a typewriter whose text is isomorphic to the underlying formal specification than a fancy document that is not.  AFAICT fancy documents do not make the Internet works better, whereas formal specs do.  When we'll reach that point, I may revisit my stance against hiding crappy specs under a flourish of non-ASCII symbols.

-- 
Marc Petit-Huguenin
Email: marc@petit-huguenin.org
Blog: https://marc.petit-huguenin.org
Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/petithug
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest