--On Tuesday, October 28, 2025 09:20 +1300 Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 28-Oct-25 06:49, Paul Hoffman wrote: >> On Oct 27, 2025, at 8:42 AM, Russ Housley <[email protected]> >> wrote: >... > 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. And something like that, tuned as discussed later in the thread, would be a better solution than what I proposed in the long message I prepared and posted at Paul's instructions. I just didn't think we wanted to go that far given what I understood Paul to claim, i.e., that "all displayable text", implicitly anywhere, represented the consensus of the group after prior discussion. Focusing on technical content and accuracy would, I think, also make the discussion of character names and numerical code point identifiers somewhat easier. john -- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
