On 20.03.2025 07:27, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On 20. Mar 2025, at 07:11, Robert Sparks <rjspa...@nostrum.com> wrote:
On 3/20/25 11:09 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On 20. Mar 2025, at 04:45, Jean Mahoney <jmaho...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote:
[JM] TEXT is used for RFCs created in the RFCXML v3 era. ASCII is for older
RFCs. The TEXT label indicates the file can contain non-ASCII characters [2].
There are a dozen or so pre-v3 RFCs that are beyond-ASCII.
(And actually a couple that aren’t even UTF-8!)
Pointers to the non-UTF8 encoded RFCs please?
I didn’t take notes when I last checked this, but I can do the check again.
Let’s start with:
rfc101 rfc177 rfc178 rfc182 rfc227 rfc234 rfc235 rfc237 rfc243 rfc270
rfc282 rfc288 rfc290 rfc292 rfc303 rfc306 rfc307 rfc310 rfc313 rfc315
rfc316 rfc317 rfc323 rfc327 rfc367 rfc369 rfc441 rfc2497 rfc2557
rfc2708 rfc2875
For info, here are a few RFCs that are not v3 but not ASCII either:
rfc8187 rfc8264 rfc8265 rfc8266
And then there are the RFCs that contain NUL bytes, like RFC 674…
I didn’t do a full categorization of these critters.
8187 was an experiment (wrt formatting) to see how the various tools
deal with it.
AFAIR, I took the text output of xml2rfc and "fixed" it in place.
Best regards, Julian
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list -- rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rfc-interest-le...@rfc-editor.org
