IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rfc-i] Unicode in xml2rfc v3

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Thu, 17 December 2020 20:08 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 E58C93A0FB9; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 12:08:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, 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=gmx.net
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 lt5UduRM_B0t; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 12:08:15 -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 652023A0FC6; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 12:08:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55D7EF40749; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 12:08:06 -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 260BDF40749 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 12:08:05 -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=gmx.net
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 uDEqkaZqHVWk for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 12:08:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.20]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB5DDF40741 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 12:08:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1608235688; bh=rKrB8Vhj91e8+uwutrb2pDpWwZxq7A6f9hOmJMUHiGk=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=cz8A22IlRqeSPiwdmBMIccQWGYaH1X/Wp3UfqPVAu0UqJM04DByY8BI1MmnpOJBcb zDrFwfqLAmsNqG9/baHZO0Jwsm9R9sXK98TgSDaB/k/awWeAPXfz/Xys/m7ewthB1I w936xJzzNygHzGTS82KBa6YxDJsu5YsiLexILiPI=
X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c
Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([84.171.155.208]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx104 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MKKYx-1kWX2d0Jvr-00Lnr6 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 21:08:08 +0100
To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
References: <20201216184835.CE1CA2ABC7A1@ary.qy> <AF7F0885-2D39-4F8D-A43B-E1D015146EAE@eggert.org> <72467617-6ca7-b2af-b826-d264c6b6380e@gmail.com>
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Message-ID: <a0dd29b1-82bc-f3d8-eb35-5b968ba54337@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2020 21:08:06 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <72467617-6ca7-b2af-b826-d264c6b6380e@gmail.com>
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:f2GUQSPUfX5dfdX5GXlSaWdg0uCG6VUXI5VvKSU4sElnUM5tfrZ lw4cDFE1Dsn571kEluGgENRUIQfsFpcrKMZ6guMDz1KwhWmSBTmUMQm37yFgSB/wNB5/alG MAroLsI6gqX3HxRhWnqkq5Jf1iPDMv2ER77UBoUiTa880AmGjI8cFp5W+7Vjix+xoiYoaLz typTMT78xLXO7MptCwMOw==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:Ychxk0rGGpg=:SdtXUeoG1nV+91aVAOTdV2 SdPM4+3aHFPjo5Kw8HwrYL3drrheKcw1WnzFTQxyxd37JvDT3er14AKUTlVazPovIBZ/cdTTM 3pkxC+0E3TTYgBVPFMHUFd3A0/OBSfE9F8iesL9ideZn+hNKGE2fs0tqqYFY4AnodoJqLuSBZ 3br6MezjH3/Hg5TauNk7bWjSCXh3ekAN/JGhBD0Ic2NH1JviJL78CFNgT9RcuBDG+N1uXKoQY dyLeZjeSfeWpl9ks3P33nIYgBjD2aZkCRWay7LN597cVSEZthdnPILQkJ7KBed91IruDJpMip 562L59kIG1keXtJa49aSZM/7RFu7AcyfJIoEMQC6VrzEgzUelN6ADg41GQeEx/OW9DA8Vqurz G8f9W+9glqO0Rk6S4ctNRg+2jqlmxdhZASF14tvmxbCkhIvFxxkWKb0tOpmXLEUVuVP/YX9TA t+Kknn5yoVMKr6I7QV4jglpFnI0AD1Yb3vc8qMaEfTUL5UIkhnY+CODseTEh4OESF3lF7kU4R msMkV0guohVYEe5Ue6B8F80Q39HdE7fKmyXFkwOzf7rk2Z6xKrVXFs8ICO/ihdHQUorQZMll8 4GlqjJSbui2I0fUw+26TOrPOYJ7KqG0lcvB0p/WL6VNG0WeoGroB4nsXfbO7aDDPdweDCSqR6 ebYztgS0vVe3FyER0weZbwi7qZdqqDP5BGFDAudx17LOpowvxvyxQFieAAr/JQjk/0sxJ5I1t mBbZCDrAcxNW0flERNYX3eipv77evHaVYWslt+dhvE2h4MjZ+gh9Kv88CRLfrhOUZguDXD3h2 VtoKpkVMLtwxiJXOu7nZOci/rGs5cLhJymTxmGbIkJjXYM0u4mi4Fzs0d0qLTF7posW3mzsrG qIY9MsUEUg9zlAfWPkjw==
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>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

Am 17.12.2020 um 21:00 schrieb Brian E Carpenter:
> 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.

We wanted to be restrictive, but we did not intend to be a restrictive
as xml2rfc (in v3 mode) turned out to be. Keep in mind that <u> is not
in RFC 7991.

And, FWIW, π shouldn't be a problem anywhere. Emojis might.

Best regards, Julian
_______________________________________________
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