On 28-Oct-25 06:49, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Oct 27, 2025, at 8:42 AM, Russ Housley <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear RSWG:
Section 3, 1st para says:
The policy for the RFC Series is that all displayable text is allowed
as long as the reader of an RFC can interpret that text.
Which, to be frank, is a purely aspirational statement with no objective basis. Whether
the reader can "interpret" the text is not something the RPC can determine.
The closest thing in RFC 7997 appears in Section 6, which says:
The ability to use non-ASCII characters in RFCs in a clear and
consistent manner will improve the ability to describe
internationalized protocols and will recognize the diversity of
authors. However, the goal of readability will override the use of
non-ASCII characters within the text.
I find the text in RFC 7997 to be more clear policy language; however, I think
two changes are appropriate:
1) It should recognize the diversity of both authors and readers.
I have to pick that apart.
1. Authors: The only thing it "recognizes" is the correct spelling of their
names.
1a. That also applies to people mentioned as contributors, in acknowledgments,
and in citations.
2. No, it doesn't "recognize" diversity of readers. If your name is Hōne Heke,
you don't have to enter that in Unicode in order to read an RFC. The reason we allow
Unicode in the text is to enhance the technical content, typically in examples. If this
recognizes anything, it recognizes cultural diversity in general.
2) The final sentence should say that the readability takes priority over the
character choice.
But again, "readability" is an entirely subjective attribute. Surely we want to
be close to an objective statement, such as
"Apart from their role in proper names, non-ASCII characters should be used only
when they enhance the technical content and accuracy of the document."
Earlier discussion indicated that we are much less concerned about the authors
than of readers. It is up to the streams to tell the RPC if an author's
requirements for particular displayable text should be considered.
We don't need to say that in the text, IMHO.
Isn't this a place where, again, we can let the RPC make their best judgement?
The current sentence doesn't (or shouldn't) restrict them.
So I end up with:
The ability to use non-ASCII characters in RFCs in a clear and consistent
manner will allow the correct display of proper names and improve the ability
to describe internationalized protocols. Apart from their role in proper names,
non-ASCII characters should be used only when they enhance the technical
content and accuracy of the document.
Regards/Ngā mihi
Brian Carpenter
--
rswg mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
