Re: [Rswg] Archiving the Archive format

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

Am 03.08.2022 um 14:53 schrieb Martin J. Dürst:
>
>
> On 2022-08-03 18:51, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> Am 02.08.2022 um 05:45 schrieb Martin J. Dürst:
>>> ...
>>> Nit: Well, it's actually　LATIN SMALL LETTER A WITH CIRCUMFLEX, to be
>>> exact. And please note that these character names, contrary to country
>>> names, are set in stone. ISO and the Unicode Consortium would rather
>>> encode a new character than ever change the name.
>>> (for more details, see e.g.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicode_alias_names_and_abbreviations)
>>> ...
>>
>> Martin, thanks for the pointers.
>>
>> But then you just opened a new can of worms... What if an author wants
>> to use an alias name instead of the primary name? <u> and xml2rfc
>> currently do not support that.
>
> My understanding is that the name is used as an identifier; in that case
> it's probably enough to keep allowing just the name. But see below.

But unless I'm missing something, <u> just takes literal characters, and
they are *expanded* to full names. You don't have any control about
which full name is picked, it will alway be the primary one.

>> We really need to revisit the design of <u>. It probably can be fixed,
>> but some work is necessary.
>
> Yes. I think that we need to be able to move towards a state where
> non-ASCII characters can be included more naturally in RFCs. In many
> cases, non-ASCII text just serves as an example, and people who really
> want to know what the code points are can use whatever tool they like.

Which means non-ASCII characters would be allowed outside <u>; it would
be just a convenience element for automatic expansion, not a requirement.

> BTW, in
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-irse-draft-irse-xml2rfcv3-implemented-01.html#section-3.62.3,
> it says " For example, will be rendered as"; some important stuff seems
> to be missing.
>
> Regards,   Martin.

Best regards, Julian