> On 12/1/05, Hallam-Baker, Phillip <pbaker@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On a point of information, most of the references I see in existing RFCs > > are to sections in any case. > > I suspect this is because almost everyone refers to an HTML version in > informal communication. But, I actually agree with Keith that keeping > the format as a text file is the right thing to do. Actually I don't think that utf-8 plain text is the right thing to do. I think we should stick with ASCII for now, as the benefits of UTF-8 _for our particular purposes_ aren't compelling enough, and the the ability to read and print UTF-8 in the field is still significantly worse than the ability to read and print ASCII. In a few years, perhaps, we should move to UTF-8, but by then I suspect we'd be better off doing (M)HTML than plain text. OS support for plain text files seems to be getting worse over time rather than better. Or maybe we'll just continue to have PDF versions of the RFCs but allow them to contain non-Latin characters for authors' names. (seems like our current rules more or less let us do that already, and it would just require an extension to xml2rfc to allow such names to be specified and some changes to the document production toolchain to permit them to be included in the PDF version) Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf