Hi all,
Here's my take of the consensus state of the non-editorial issues
brought up during WGLC on 7997bis, not in any particular order. If you
think I've blown it, either getting the consensus wrong or missing an
issue that you thought was substantive and not editorial, now is the
time to let me know. (I haven't put anything in here that Paul already
said, "Yeah, I'll make that change.")
1. U+ notation vs. Unicode names: People seem happy with "use either or
both, whichever is sensible in the circumstance". Should also say this
in the example on color. Leave anything else to the style guide.
2. Brian's suggestion for an explicit "RPC will apply its best judgment"
<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rswg/CQZqJi4tLR5qjua2BaNgQP3vtLk>:
Not much interest
3. Whether the policy is aimed "for the reader" or "for the author":
Consensus seems to me that the doc should say something about authors.
Some explicit support from Brian's suggestion in
<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rswg/zF2-lBMYYDPj-igQivMo3O5ivWo>.
Might also want something saying, "The RPC style guide will define which
characters authors may use and how."
4. "English is the language of RFCs": Consensus seems to me that
something should be said in this document, since the style guide is not
an RSWG policy, just RPC implementation, and no other RSWG document says
so explicitly. It's not necessarily perfectly related to this document,
but probably no significant harm putting it in.
5. JCK's suggestion to change "as long as the reader of an RFC can
interpret that text" to "as long as there is a high expectation that
readers of an RFC will be able to interpret its text as intended". No
objections noted, so sounds like we should go forward with it.
6. Searching requirement being too expansive: Brian provided some
possible text, others suggested reverting to 7997 language, Brian
suggested maybe to remove it entirely. Not quite clear consensus.
7. Distinguishing "individual characters" from "strings" in section 3
ff: No particular takers on this (other than JCK himself who posted
about it). Would like to hear more. (Chair hat off: Sounds like
something for the style guide, not policy.)
8. JCK's 4(a) - 4(c) on NFC, directionality, naming: No discussion so
far, but again, with chair hat off, this sounds like style guide
material, not policy.
9. JCK's 5 on making a list of scripts and languages: No discussion.
Silence is not a good basis on which to judge consensus.
I hope that is useful. Let me know if I've missed/misconstrued anything.
pr
--
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best
--
rswg mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
