At 12:15 AM -0800 12/1/05, Douglas Otis wrote:
Why do you think there is a problem using all possible characters in an
ID, but not in an RFC?
I don't. I simply believe that, given the way the IETF deals with
process changes, it is easier to change one process at a time.
Why would it be okay for the RFC not to be
readable for some, but then ensure the ID is limited to ASCII?
I don't. It makes good sense to have both publication formats be the
same, but getting that to happen at the same time may be too much of
a hurdle for the IETF.
The suggestion of the HTML escape would ensure readability.
Fully disagree. Listing an author as Patrik Fältström is
not "readable".
As only
ASCII would be used, there would be no issues related to searching.
Fully disagree. People would have to search using the escaped-HTML
kludge, even though our documents are plain text.
It
would allow an alternative display that remains compatible with an ASCII
limitation as the authoritative version.
It would mix escaped HTML into text/plain documents. It would also
make RFCs that talk about HTML extremely difficult to read, because
the reader would not know if entities in examples are supposed to be
the escaped or unescaped versions.
UTF-8 use would require
additional considerations regarding searching however.
Please list those; they would be valuable for the Internet Draft.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf