[rfc-i] open issues: character sets of examples
mrex at sap.com
Mon Jun 4 12:24:45 PDT 2012
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> it is not terribly convincing to say (for
> instance) that U+02BC looks a lot like U+0027. If, however, I say
> that the character U+02BC, MODIFIER LETTER APOSTROPHE (?) often
> resembles the character U+0027, APOSTROPHE ('), then the claim will
> perhaps be more convincing (to those using Unicode in their display).
and just the opposite to those who do not have unicode-support in
their work environment, or where the information needs to be conveyed
in conversation/speech (be it phone, f2f discussion or accessibility).
About ~95 % of my software and work environments (including
EMail, RFC-reading and Software development) are limited to iso8859-1.
Last time I printed out PDFs with german umlauts (iso8859-1) with
the HP Postscript printer driver, the umlauts were missing in the
> Even my email client of choice -- mutt -- has been able to cope with
> this for over 10 years on every terminal I have used. Perhaps someone
> can make the counter-argument clearer to me?
Neither "mutt" nor my favourite Elm are capable of rendering anything
beyond iso8859-1, because the environments that I use (R5 xterm
with ssh remote login or putty) support it. But that is no problem,
because I do neither understand nor can I type characters outside
of iso8859-1 -- let alone pronounce them, so they're completely
irrelevant to me and all technical discussions that I participate.
More information about the rfc-interest