[rfc-i] Comments on draft-iab-rfcformatreq
"Martin J. Dürst"
duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
Wed Dec 19 21:09:25 PST 2012
On 2012/12/20 10:15, Martin Rex wrote:
> John R Levine wrote:
>> Sure, but if it turns out that only 1% of the people reading RFCs are
>> using devices that can't display accented characters,
> And it turns out that less than 1% of the people reading RFCs know
> the correct names of _all_ accents and _all_ accented characters.
As John has shown, that also applies to some widely used ASCII symbols.
> The reason to spell out non-ASCII unicode code points is that everyone
> will call it by the very same name, rather than everyone guessing or
> trying to describe the shape of the glyph instead, leading to
> ambiguity and misunderstandings.
For the actual examples I have created, this is virtually irrelevant.
And I have a strong guess that this is the same for other cases, and
that otherwise, the authors of the documents will
I don't expect anybody to be able to name the non-ASCII character in my
name. I don't expect anybody except those with a German background to
pronounce it correctly (a French background, and maybe others, will also
get it mostly correct, but that's more by accident). If they can
copy-and-paste it when they refer to my name, I'd just be happy.
Also, for those examples that don't include codepoints, I don't expect
people to need to know the codepoints, because codepoints are not
relevant in the example at hand. Even if somebody is interested in a
codepoint, they can just use a tool to find out. (I'd recommend
People using non-ASCII in examples are not doing that because they want
to confuse readers, but because they want to help readers get a better
understanding of the matter at hand. Therefore they will use them in a
way that helps readers. If not, then that has to be called out like any
of the numerous bad ASCII examples that have lurked in I-Ds along the years.
More information about the rfc-interest