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

["Martin J. Dürst" <[e-mail]>]

Sorry, but I think less hair-splitting would be better. Mathematical 
precision has its place, in particular in protocol descriptions. But 
using slightly less precise colloquial expressions helps grease the 
dialog. Using such expressions should not be a problem if everybody 
understands that everybody else understands them in the same way (which 
clearly was the case here).

Regards,   Martin.

P.S.: I have worked on and with Unicode in many different contexts and 
occasions, and have never had a problem getting misunderstood when 
asking questions such as "is Unicode allowed here". Such a phrase is 
inherently ambiguous (all of Unicode? most of Unicode? some of Unicode? 
a subset of Unicode so small that using the word Unicode isn't really 
worth it?). But people on the other end invariably understand that what 
the phrase is about (roughly "at least some significant part of 
Unicode"), to the right degree of precision. The same applies to 
"non-ASCII" in the right context. That's how human language (as opposed 
to Mathematics or the variant of English that we use to describe 
protocols) works. And we can be thankful for that, because otherwise, we 
wouldn't be able to finish a single sentence.

On 2023-01-20 06:01, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> On 2023-01-19, at 21:46, Marc Petit-Huguenin <[e-mail]> 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.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Grüße, Carsten
> 
> _______________________________________________
> xml2rfc mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xml2rfc