On Wed, Oct 29, 2025, at 15:55, Martin J. Dürst wrote: > Saying that RFCs are in English will also make it easier to understand > the following sentence in the current draft: > "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." > For people who's daily life in 99.9 or more English, that sentence may > just read fine. But for people who live and work with other languages, > too, there's very clearly the feeling that something is missing. So I > propose something along the lines of: > "RFCs are published in English, see [RFC 7322 for details. All > displayable text is allowed as long as a reader familiar with English > can interpret that text."
I agree with Martin that having a statement about language in *policy* is worthwhile, if only to ensure that other statements in this document make sense. But also because I don't think that this is a question that is or should be open to RPC discretion. The style guide is RPC discretion. Under the RSWG structure, RFC 7322 is essentially an internal detail of RPC practice. A normative reference wouldn't be appropriate. An informational reference is fine, but I wouldn't say "see RFC 7322 for details". Instead, I would say that "the RPC is responsible for working out the details, such as the statement in Section XX of RFC 7322." -- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
