[rfc-i] Pagination requirements

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Wed May 16 01:31:21 PDT 2012


On 2012-05-16 10:24, Martin Rex wrote:
> 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.

I don't think anybody has proposed to use "all unicode codepoints".

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

Did you ever try to read a text/plain RFC with a screen reader? How did 
it deal with page breaks, artworks, lists, and so on?

> 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.

But using "&#xnn;" worked better? Seriously?

Best regards, Julian


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list