On Oct 15, 2025, at 01:52, Eliot Lear <[email protected]> wrote: > I've reviewed the draft and I think it's ok. But I perhaps you can simplify.
Always a good idea! However... > 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. That is not a simplification: it adds requirements that are not currently there. > 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. The current text already allows the RPC to appy good judgement, without making them think about to make decisions that go against BCP14 language in this draft. > 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? Yes, absolutely. Good catch! --Paul Hoffman -- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
