At 1:54 PM -0800 11/30/05, Douglas Otis wrote:
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hoffman-utf8-rfcs>
Rather than opening RFCs to text utilizing any character-set
anywhere, as this draft suggests,
That is not what the RFC suggests at all. The character set is
Unicode. The encoding is UTF-8. That's it.
there could be alternative UTF fields for an author's name and
reference titles, and perhaps defined characters for simple line and
table drawing that invoke automatic translation when an ASCII text
version is generated.
That's a possibility (if you define what an "alternative UTF field"
is). Why is it better than simply using UTF-8 everywhere?
Being able to review the ID as it would appear as an RFC would also
seem to be a requirement.
That means changing the Internet Drafts process as well. Certainly
possible, but more daunting that changing one process at a time.
It seems problematic for protocol examples to use non-ASCII
characters owing to there not being ubiquitously displayable
character-sets.
Unicode is universally displayable if you have the right font(s).
Regardless of that, however, any sane document author would not
assume that every person reading the document could display it. They
would put a legend or explanation near the example.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf