Hi Paul,I've reviewed the draft and I think it's ok. But I perhaps you can simplify.
For example, try this on for size for U+xxxx: * It MUST be used when doing so would facilitate the reader's understanding of any aspect of a technical specification, be that normative text or examples. * It SHOULD NOT be used when doing so would degrade the readability of the document. I'm not sure how much more you really have to say, policy-wise. The RPC will apply good judgment in addressing both of these points. Also, on this text:
Where the use of non-ASCII characters is purely part of an example and not otherwise required for correct protocol operation, giving the Unicode equivalent of the non-ASCII characters is not required, but it can improve the readability of the RFC
s/example *and* not otherwise/example *or* not otherwise/There's a lot of non-normative text out there that could benefit from Unicode without the need for (U+...). Could you please strengthen that point so that people see that it's not just about examples?
Thanks, Eliot On 14.10.2025 00:33, Paul Hoffman wrote:
Greetings again. I have made the changes suggested in the discussion of the -04 version. Given the light discussion of the last two drafts, I believe this version is ready for WG Last Call, if the WG Chairs agree. --Paul Hoffman
OpenPGP_0x87B66B46D9D27A33.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
