[rfc-i] limiting repertoire of Unicode characters allowed?
Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)
jhildebr at cisco.com
Wed Nov 20 16:19:05 PST 2013
I would be ok with using a webfont and falling back to fonts that work
widely without download, such that we didn't have to embed the font in
*every* RFC instance.
Tengwar (Elvish) may be on the Unicode roadmap
(http://www.unicode.org/roadmaps/smp/), but Klingon is not. Regardless,
who are we to say that these languages, if they're added to Unicode, are
invalid for examples? I think that should be up to the author and the RSE
at the time to decide, based on interoperability of the suggested text
with the widely-deployed browsers of the day. For example, I might want
to describe what to do in situations where a new character is allocated in
Unicode for applications that were written before that version, using a
recently-added character to make my point more clear.
On 11/20/13 10:10 PM, "Larry Masinter" <masinter at adobe.com> wrote:
>I've been investigating some of the issues around PDF generation as well
>as "archival quality HTML".
>While Unicode support is widespread, not all characters have readily
>available glyphs in commonly available fonts. Are there freely
>available fonts which are appropriate for RFCs?
>a) have glyphs for the characters likely to appear in RFCs, either as
>examples or in name characters?
>b) proportional spacing, have a mono-space companion for ASCII art &
>code, such that proportional spacing and mono-space look good together.
>The font needs to be downloadable for HTML and embeddable for PDF.
>Quite possibly this needs to be a 'style guide' issue.... avoid Klingon &
>elvish examples, for example.
>rfc-interest mailing list
>rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest