[rfc-i] How lack of Unicode support in IDs is detrimental to design
"Martin J. Dürst"
duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
Mon Jul 30 00:06:05 PDT 2012
On 2012/07/28 7:59, Martin Rex wrote:
> Consider that you wanted to send an EMail to someone (you barely know)
> the information about a certain move of a figure in the board game chess.
> The "old school" IETF approach would require you to send
> "white pawn h2-h4".
> But instead you're going to send a 3-D graphical animation (no sound)
> of a chess board showing the pawn move h2-h4, render it as a flash
> movie and attach it to your email.
> Now what could happen is that the receipient uses some kind of
> smart phone or tablet for reading his EMail, and that devices
> happens to not support rendering of flash movies.
Well, I thought we were in a discussion of Unicode.
So why not use U+2659, WHITE CHESS PAWN (see
http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/UA640.pdf). That way, we can just say:
and it starts to look like a professional chess record, not something
half-baked (ASCII only) or totally over the top (flash).
> I strongly believe that it is perfectly reasonable to expect from
> someone who is not completely ignorant about chess to come up with
> that text (as sender) or to figure out what it means when received.
> And I don't think we should spend a lot of IETF resources into making
> the chess-ignorant, but 3-D-flash-animation loving geeks happy.
But maybe spend some resources making real chess players happy?
More information about the rfc-interest