On 12/1/05, Hallam-Baker, Phillip <pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com> 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 mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf