> Perhaps a workable compromise is to specify > UTF-8 as the encoding for RFCs, but limited today to some > subset of the full Unicode character set. If UTF-8 is the *ARCHIVAL* encoding for RFCs, that does not prohibit a repository from converting this encoding to some set of formats that are more universally readable. For instance, a PDF file with all character glyphs included, and an ASCII HTML file with GIFs for non-ASCII characters all in one folder bundled into a .ZIP file. In moving from a pure-ASCII environment, it is necessary to decompose the process of creating, publishing and using an RFC. At different stages in that process, different formats may be required in order to maintain universal access to the document. Note that if the UTF-8 document is in XML, there are a wide variety of tools currently available that can transform it into any imaginable format. Instead of seeking for the holy grail of one true and universal format, it would be far better to define a process workflow and an archival base format. --Michael Dillon _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf