[rfc-i] Comments on draft-iab-rfcformatreq
John R Levine
johnl at taugh.com
Tue Dec 18 15:12:14 PST 2012
> If I am reading this right, there are two related bu distinct issues related
> to extended character sets.
> On the one side, there are cases where we need such characters. We need to
> be clear about what those cases are, and why, if only so folks can understand
> the tradeoffs we are making.
> On the other side, the RFC has to be readable and understandable by folks who
> may not have scrips for some characters installed, or who may not be easily
> able t distinguish subtle differences in characters within the script. (It
> is hard enough to read English some days.)
Right. One thing we don't know is how many people don't have a resaonably
modern character set available. I'm a troglodyte, typing bash commands on
FreeBSD, but my terminal emulator has all of the accented latin characters
and a pretty good collection of Arabic, Chinese, and Japanese as well.
We may well be worrying about a vanishingly small set of people banging
away on their Model 37 ttys.
The sort of thing I'm thinking of drafts like
It's about the way that various registries handle IDNs. While it was
possible to write it using hex Unicode values, it would have been a lot
easier to read if we could just mention exámple.tld vs. example.tld and
the issues of Ç and C in some scripts.
John Levine, johnl at taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
"I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.
More information about the rfc-interest