[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
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-levine-tld-variant-04

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.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl at taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
"I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list