Re: [xml2rfc-dev] xml2rfc would not be able to render RFC 7997

[Tom Pusateri <[e-mail]>]

If you’re to change the use of non-ascii characters in RFCs, there’s been many requests for unicode math symbols in paragraph text.

I feel like someone is going to shoot me for saying this but really, it’s 2019. We should be able to do ≤ instead of <=

Tom

> On Oct 15, 2019, at 2:35 PM, Heather Flanagan <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Oct 14, 2019, at 11:58 PM, Julian Reschke <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> So,
>> 
>> RFC 7997 is "The Use of Non-ASCII Characters in RFCs". In
>> <https://www.greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc7997.html#rfc.section.3.2> it
>> says:
>> 
>>> Example Acknowledgements section:
>>> 
>>> OLD:
>>> 
>>> The following people contributed significant text to early versions of this draft: Patrik Faltstrom, William Chan, and Fred Baker.
>>> 
>>> PROPOSED/NEW:
>>> 
>>> The following people contributed significant text to early versions of this draft: Patrik Fältström (Faltstrom), 陈智昌 (William Chan), and Fred Baker.
>> 
>> However,
>> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-levkowetz-xml2rfc-v3-implementation-notes-09#appendix-A.1>
>> states:
>> 
>>> A.1.  <u>
>>> 
>>>  In xml2rfc vocabulary version 3, the elements <author>,
>>>  <organisation>, <street>, <city>, <region>, <code>, <country>,
>>>  <postalLine>, <email>, <seriesInfo>, and <title> may contain non-
>>>  ascii characters for the purpose of rendering author names,
>>>  addresses, and reference titles correctly.  They also have an
>>>  additional "ascii" attribute for the purpose of proper rendering in
>>>  ascii-only media.
>>> 
>>>  In order to insert Unicode characters in any other context, xml2rfc
>>>  vocabulary v3 requires that the Unicode string be enclosed within an
>>>  <u> element.  The element will be expanded inline based on the value
>>>  of a "format" attribute.  This provides a generalised means of
>>>  generating the 6 methods of Unicode renderings listed in [RFC7997],
>>>  Section 3.4, and also several others found in for instance the RFC
>>>  Format Tools example rendering of RFC 7700, at https://rfc-
>>>  format.github.io/draft-iab-rfc-css-bis/sample2-v2.html.
>>> 
>>>  The "format" attribute accepts either a simplified format
>>>  specification, or a full format string with placeholders for the
>>>  various possible Unicode expansions.
>>> 
>>> A.1.1.  Expansion of simplified <u> format specifications
>>> 
>>>  The simplified format consists of dash-separated keywords, where each
>>>  keyword represents a possible expansion of the Unicode character or
>>>  string; use for example "<u "lit-num-name">foo</u>" to expand the
>>>  text to its literal value, code point values, and code point names.
>>> 
>>>  A combination of up to 3 of the following keywords may be used,
>>>  separated by dashes: "num", "lit", "name", "ascii", "char".  The
>>>  keywords are expanded as follows and combined, with the second and
>>>  third enclosed in parentheses (if present):
>>> 
>>>     "num"    The numeric value(s) of the element text, in U+1234
>>>              notation
>>> 
>>>     "name"   The Unicode name(s) of the element text
>>> 
>>>     "lit"    The literal element text, enclosed in quotes
>>> 
>>>     "char"   The literal element text, without quotes
>>> 
>>>     "ascii"  The value of the 'ascii' attribute on the <u> element
>>> 
>>>  In order to ensure that no specification mistakes can result for
>>>  rendering methods that cannot render all Unicode code points, "num"
>>>  MUST always be part of the specified format.
>>> 
>>>  The default value of the "format" attribute is "lit-name-num".
>> 
>> So, unless I'm missing something, the only way to get non-ASCII
>> characters into regular prose is using <u>, and using <u> implies
>> automatic expansion of characters to numerical representations of the
>> codepoints.
>> 
>> Possible solutions:
>> 
>> 1) In RFC 7997bis, remove the suggestion to allow non-ASCII names in
>> Acknowledgements etc.
>> 
>> 2) Relax the requirements for <u> so that it doesn't *need* to be used
>> in prose.
>> 
>> 3) Relax the requirement about output formats for <u>.
>> 
>> My preference would be 2) or 3).
> 
> I agree that 1) is not ideal - won’t go that route.
> 
> I like 3) over 2) because the point of <u> is to help be clear in text that might be semantically important for the spec about what characters are being used. If we just say “any prose”, I feel like that might open us up to the confusion we’re trying to avoid. Does that make sense?
> 
> I haven’t added <u> to the 7991bis doc. I’m currently looking at reverting <seriesInfo> as per https://github.com/rfc-format/draft-iab-xml2rfc-v3-bis/issues/7 <https://github.com/rfc-format/draft-iab-xml2rfc-v3-bis/issues/7>, so I’m not far away from <u>. 
> 
> -Heather
> 
>> 
>> Best regards, Julian
>> 
>> PS: tracked for now at
>> <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/trac/ticket/416 <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/trac/ticket/416>>
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> xml2rfc-dev mailing list
>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xml2rfc-dev <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xml2rfc-dev>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> xml2rfc-dev mailing list
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xml2rfc-dev <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xml2rfc-dev>