On Sep 13, 2025, at 13:44, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Generally I like the new look of this draft and it really is a policy
> document, not a tech spec.
>
> A couple of minor comments:
>
> "This document ... updates the RFC Style Guide [RFC7322]."
>
> It isn't stated what the specific changes to RFC 7322 are. RFC 7322 doesn't
> mention ASCII or UTF-8.
> (It does cite BCP 18/RFC 2277.) Isn't this actually a case of "extends"
> rather than "updates"?
My apologies, I was sloppy in that reference. It updates what the Style Guide
is becoming, as described in draft-rpc-rfc7322bis.
Maybe a better way to deal with this is to remove the references to RFC 7322,
and simply ask the RFC Editor to update draft-rpc-rfc7322bis to match this
draft. The one place where ASCII is mentioned there is no longer needed.
> "As stated in the RFC Style Guide [RFC7322], the language of the RFC Series
> is English."
>
> Should we state the policy that when there are regional variations in
> spelling, a given RFC should be internally consistent? ("Colour" vs "Color",
> for example.) Or does that belong elsewhere?
It belongs in the Style Guide. The current draft-rpc-rfc7322bis says:
The RFC publication language is English. Spelling may be either American or
British, as long as an individual document is internally consistent. Where both
American and British English spelling are used within a document or cluster of
documents, the text will be modified to be consistent with American English
spelling.
On Sep 13, 2025, at 17:15, John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote:
> I think a little more non-mandatory advice could be helpful.
>
> Since xml2rfc adds font info to the HTML and PDF rendered versions, authors
> should consult
> with the RPC if they want to use code points not in the usual fonts.
>
> Even for code points in the fonts, authors should avoid text sequences that
> are likely
> to render inconsistently on different devices, such as intermixed
> left-to-right and right-to-left
> text.
While I fully agree with that advice, it doesn't feel like it should be in a
document that gives policy about RFC publication. Instead, maybe it should go
into the RFC Style Guide.
--Paul Hoffman
--
rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
