--On Thursday, October 30, 2025 16:45 +0000 Pete Resnick <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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/CQZqJi4tLR5qjua2BaNgQP3 > vtLk>: 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-igQivMo3O5 > ivWo>. 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. Pete, I don't think you have missed/ misconstrued much of anything, but an observation or two on your comments: If we assume the model is to draw the line between policy and the style guide in a way that keeps "policy" as narrow as possible, I suggest that almost everything in the document now falls into one of two categories: things that could be in the style manual and extreme generalities. Some of the latter, including the "all displayable text..." statement, are dangerous or wrong, even if the RPC gets to override whatever they get. The text about searching may be an example problem area that we cannot wave at and say "style manual". Maybe that means we should be considering just dropping this document. Since we are not going to do that, a different suggestion that would simplify things considerably and put responsibility for the details --details that might be controversial and/or that might require revision as the experience of the community and the RPC evolve-- onto the RPC and into the Style Guide. Specifically... (a) Replace the second paragraph of the Abstract with: "The policy for the RFC Series is that it should be possible to utilize any character or string that can be represented in Unicode as long as that makes sense. Details will appear in the Style Guide. This document obsoletes RFC 7997." (b) Delete the second paragraph of Section 2: it is not a policy, it is a wish. See your (6) above. (c) Delete the body of the current Section 3 in its entirety, replacing it with either of the following options: (c.1) "The policy for the RFC Series is that it should be possible to utilize any character or string that can be represented in Unicode as long as that makes sense. Details about specifics for individual characters and special cases for names and example appear in the Style Guide. " (c.2) The above paragraph plus a listing of specific topics that the Style Guide will include on the subject of text/ i18n characters and strings. While this should not be inclusive of all possible topics, a list of topics that definitely should be covered can quite reasonably be treated as a policy matter. Drawing from the existing text, the distinction between names and examples should appear on the list. So should the ways of identifying characters and when that is suggested or required. I think some topics about well-known scripts and character isolates should do. But in no case should the document go beyond topic identification (policy) and into details that might vary over time, by script, or by the context of particular documents. All of the latter should be style manual topics. (d) One could, optionally, add to Section 5: "The RPC is expected to catch and revise or remove any Unicode string that could pose a hazard to the machine environment of the reader." or not. Clearly a policy statement. This change of approach would also shorten the reference list, etc., unless someone wanted to make a case for an "Additional useful reading" section that could restore the relevant references. john -- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
