[rfc-i] open issues: character sets of examples
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Mon Jun 4 14:18:04 PDT 2012
On 2012-06-04 21:24, Martin Rex wrote:
> 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.
So no € for you?
Best regards, Julian
More information about the rfc-interest