[rfc-i] Pagination requirements

[Martin Rex]

Julian Reschke wrote:
> 
> > exotic codepage than Cherokee, e.g. Cyrillic (but it's lacking the R):
> >
> >      Cyrillic:&#x0405;&#x0422;&#x0420;&#x0415;&#x0422;&#x0415;R<p>
> >
> > Anyway, I consider it completely unnecessary trying to demonstrate (and fail)
> > that there exist different unicode codepoints that have similar glyphs.
> > It is perfectly sufficient to state that this is the case and leave all
> > the rest to the Unicode SDO.
> 
> So your position is that the IETF shouldn't work on specs that involve 
> I18N? If it's not, what exactly *is* your position?


Describing I18N issues regularly will not require the use of I18N glyphs.
For the visualzation on screen and on paper, about 100% of all users
will not be able to recognize all unicode codepoints, so the inevitable
result from rendering non-ASCII glyphs within IETF specification will
be confusion.

Btw. did you ever try your fancy I18N glyphs with accessibility
like a screen reader (such as narrator) for visually impaired folks?

I believe it would be very desirable to make RFC contents to be
equally comprehensible to all potential consumers.  I just tried
narrator on Win7 in a VMware, and the result for cyrillic and
cherokean glyphs is entirely incomprehensible to me.


-Martin