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 mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf