Re: [rfc-i] Unicode in xml2rfc v3

> 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.

Jay

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

-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
jay@ietf.org