Re: [rfc-i] Unicode in xml2rfc v3

On 12/17/20 12:10 PM, Jay Daley wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 18/12/2020, at 9:00 AM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 17-Dec-20 19:57, Lars Eggert wrote:
>>> 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.)
>>
>> Agreed. I think the original decision to be very restrictive was due to general concerns about moving away from .txt as the primary format. How π, still less emojis, will be rendered in ASCII remains an issue, but just as RFC1119 worked out fine, I think we should get over the fact that some (or most) future RFCs simply won't work in .txt.
> 
> Can someone explain to me why our .txt files have to be ASCII?  I doubt I have a single text tool left that can’t process UTF-8.
> 

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.

-- 
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