[rfc-i] Incorrect use of the word "ASCII" in section 3.2
mrex at sap.com
Tue Mar 12 10:16:24 PDT 2013
Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2013-03-12 02:52, Martin Rex wrote:
> > The problem with characters from not from US-ASCII is that you can
> > NEVER be sure that you recognize them (a) as not being from US-ASCII,
> > and (b) which Unicode codepoints what you're seeing actually refers to.
> Oh my. For HTML, for instance, you *could* do "show source".
Maybe you have access to the paper which they use for the
newpaper in Harry Potter.
You can yell "show source" at the paper that is available around here
for many hours, and it will likely not change what the paper displays.
There may be other kinds of visualization that may be similarly
unimpressed when you say "show source". What about Kindles.
Suggesting that one may have to use "show source" to figure out the
exact meaning of some text in an RFC is only calling for trouble.
> That being said, nobody proposed to actually *use* code points with
> hard-to-distinguish glyphs.
You're missing the point again. Unicode does not have single
unambiguous code points. So the only robust rule to deal with
Unicode ambiguity is to standardize that only US-ASCII glyphs
will be considered self-describing, all others must come with
an accompanying Unicode code-point transliteration.
This will ensure that there is no ambiguity, no hidden easter eggs,
and it will be obvious independent of how the document is visualized/rendered
> Well, except for examples for this particular problem; in which case I
> do agree we want the actual code point side-by-side in prose.
> Can we please apply common sense here?
But keep in mind that where talking about specifications, not prose.
Glyphs are irrelevant for specifications (unnecessary eye-candy).
More information about the rfc-interest