IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [xml2rfc-dev] progressing RFC 7991 (and friends)

Tom Pusateri <pusateri@bangj.com> Fri, 05 June 2020 15:11 UTC

Return-Path: <pusateri@bangj.com>
X-Original-To: xml2rfc-dev@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: xml2rfc-dev@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E31C73A079A for <xml2rfc-dev@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 08:11:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=bangj.com
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 RYbHPf7_Mr6H for <xml2rfc-dev@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 08:11:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oj.bangj.com (69-77-154-174.static.skybest.com [69.77.154.174]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 379BB3A078A for <xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 08:11:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.16.10.110] (mta-107-13-246-59.nc.rr.com [107.13.246.59]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by oj.bangj.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7955A10B69; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 11:11:28 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=bangj.com; s=201907; t=1591369888; bh=VlswCgi+OwTrm8vREOGmiOHZr1dHy/DXXFEQ53ISURY=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=rQFv0mfDEb4Wjg4iJ6xpDzguS3wppln3/Lkamj7J7MbfnpDwMpRntwJZ6baTDVLg0 Lvu8H4BudQEzq/aps/U5Jl4nwjWhr4YZc2tM7JumHNV3NRszZARSm+/LfQ7G+4yJC0 83okfwHcvJdz2L8WQqQvOOiX5JLmbPIT+JUt63ofm9o/o4ex474ckARb9pkLMj11yw pUURaW6gqWJC35b/K5W4PlMynPOfU8NyZBuwIWBaz5oMCSaN/EW4Pcn1t7Zi699+nn 0V4j3rrO/IOn4EDawtwFFghSn/MI4lrPGozJvniZ1NgbtECl8FnBL5I8aOk+aJFDMe ddFB82hO0F6kA==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
From: Tom Pusateri <pusateri@bangj.com>
In-Reply-To: <6233f397-e633-a885-fefc-d3a03ba1823d@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2020 11:11:27 -0400
Cc: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <62DBE093-BE05-4BAA-A400-C939072F1E33@bangj.com>
References: <8fd7f1ba-96a7-e3fa-29a6-32fe47b5cad5@gmx.de> <1DF69700-3713-40B8-9A70-818F69483733@tzi.org> <640cdf3e-391f-7e9e-df9c-c093c0f2d2c6@gmx.de> <F35611D4-4248-411D-87F3-F6D820E737F9@tzi.org> <6233f397-e633-a885-fefc-d3a03ba1823d@gmx.de>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xml2rfc-dev/TtPWzctnkkz_I7Q8cMeuvlV48Ao>
Subject: Re: [xml2rfc-dev] progressing RFC 7991 (and friends)
X-BeenThere: xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion about particulars of xml2rfc V3 design, development and code." <xml2rfc-dev.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/xml2rfc-dev>, <mailto:xml2rfc-dev-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/xml2rfc-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xml2rfc-dev-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xml2rfc-dev>, <mailto:xml2rfc-dev-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2020 15:11:36 -0000


> On Jun 5, 2020, at 9:32 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> 
> On 05.06.2020 15:23, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>> ...
>> Will try to.
>> 
>> Just as a random data point, my biggest problem with V3 at the moment is that I only can use a subset of human names in acknowledgements or other running text (I want to use Vigenère ciphers! :-); doing some more work here would be appreciated.
>> ...
> 
> I agree that xml2rfc's approach to disallow non-ASCII except in very
> limited cases is problematic.


It seems like we all agree on this but it never changes.

xml2rfc should not be doing any non-ascii checking anywhere.

v3 documents should be UTF-8.

Tom

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email