On Tue, Oct 28, 2025 at 10:34 PM Martin Thomson <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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." > We could also say "The RFC publication language is English." and then something like Martin Thomson has here. Repetitious, but very clear. thanks, Rob
-- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
