[rfc-i] open issues: character sets of examples
jhildebr at cisco.com
Thu May 31 14:56:49 PDT 2012
On 5/31/12 11:02 AM, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
This is another attempt to discuss an issue raised by the
> RSE as not
having consensus. In this case, it is "Want the ability to
protocol examples using the character sets those examples
and, by implication, "Want broader character encoding for body
I don't personally care about diagrams; I don't think in
> diagrams, and
I don't find them that helpful. I am most comfortable with
> words. As
a result, I find examples helpful, and one way I find examples to
helpful is that they actually portray the case under discussion.
> sometimes work on internationalization issues, this
> Unicode code points outside the ASCII repertoire.
The counter argument
> appears to be that there is no reason to do this,
because one can specify the
> code points without actually displaying
them. While this is true, 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 (?)
resembles the character U+0027, APOSTROPHE ('), then the claim
perhaps be more convincing (to those using Unicode in their
"Ah," the counter-argument says, "but not everyone is using
Surely, however, this is a case where an encoding tag solves
problem? We seem to be capable of handling this in nearly every
> I have seen in many years. 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?
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest