IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [xml2rfc] [Tools-discuss] [Rfc-markdown] New xml2rfc release: v3.16.0

Marc Petit-Huguenin <marc@petit-huguenin.org> Thu, 19 January 2023 21:19 UTC

Return-Path: <marc@petit-huguenin.org>
X-Original-To: xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7621C151555; Thu, 19 Jan 2023 13:19:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_FAIL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nHlnS6UaBFE4; Thu, 19 Jan 2023 13:19:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from implementers.org (implementers.org [92.243.22.217]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF052C151554; Thu, 19 Jan 2023 13:19:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPV6:2601:204:e37f:a6af:d250:99ff:fedf:93cf] (unknown [IPv6:2601:204:e37f:a6af:d250:99ff:fedf:93cf]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-384) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "Marc Petit-Huguenin", Issuer "implementers.org" (verified OK)) by implementers.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D8A23AE232; Thu, 19 Jan 2023 22:19:17 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <4af15ba4-3286-890d-57eb-2f907854a184@petit-huguenin.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2023 13:19:15 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.6.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Cc: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>, "xml2rfc@ietf.org" <xml2rfc@ietf.org>, tools-discuss <tools-discuss@ietf.org>
References: <CAD2=Z87EMetcpv66YY_b2+X1-yFy4cTpKMjPoJL=cH99c7P_Uw@mail.gmail.com> <9d719176-a4eb-7cce-e706-10325700531c@petit-huguenin.org> <F1A5624B-16D0-4463-AC5F-B0A03F3B94B6@ietf.org> <8f5a497e-4135-7c0c-46cb-c3fe4791e9f3@petit-huguenin.org> <3B53040D-9B5F-4410-9029-459729ADFDF8@ietf.org> <7d532a76-c750-8cb6-fc86-f6242da2bc77@petit-huguenin.org> <27182BDD-899E-4238-9DF8-7AE3E0F0C18F@akamai.com> <11a20f42-4fe6-8d8d-1d76-54049d0bdb68@petit-huguenin.org> <6179D431-EC33-49B9-A793-805E926C1050@akamai.com> <6d55cf67-1ce2-8094-dda4-ab877ac2a1d7@petit-huguenin.org> <FD030B37-6910-4E8D-8C03-2CF14B4A2CA9@tzi.org>
From: Marc Petit-Huguenin <marc@petit-huguenin.org>
In-Reply-To: <FD030B37-6910-4E8D-8C03-2CF14B4A2CA9@tzi.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------CGzRZrNT0nPR2A0l91cSjuUh"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xml2rfc/fy6WiqXtD9JQrifDCATKgmMA7Hw>
Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] [Tools-discuss] [Rfc-markdown] New xml2rfc release: v3.16.0
X-BeenThere: xml2rfc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: XML2RFC discussion list <xml2rfc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/xml2rfc>, <mailto:xml2rfc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/xml2rfc/>
List-Post: <mailto:xml2rfc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xml2rfc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xml2rfc>, <mailto:xml2rfc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2023 21:19:28 -0000

On 1/19/23 13:01, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> On 2023-01-19, at 21:46, Marc Petit-Huguenin <marc@petit-huguenin.org> wrote:
>>
>> Because what I find to be problematic is allowing Unicode everywhere.
> 
> We already allow Unicode everywhere (all that ASCII is Unicode, too).
> 
> It’s only that some of the Unicode characters are shunned in certain contexts (and these aren’t even exactly the non-ASCII characters).
> 
> This discussion would be easier to take serious if we could at least get the terminology right.
> 

You are right.  Replace that by "Because what I find to be problematic is allowing the whole of Unicode everywhere."

-- 
Marc Petit-Huguenin
Email: marc@petit-huguenin.org
Blog: https://marc.petit-huguenin.org
Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/petithug

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status