[rfc-i] Comments on draft-iab-rfcformatreq

Joel M. Halpern jmh at joelhalpern.com
Tue Dec 18 16:10:15 PST 2012

Accents may or ma not be 99% prevalent.  Equally, I am sure that there 
are unicode elements which are missing from 99% of deployed machines.

Trying to make rules around the likely prevalence of representability of 
individual code points in widely deployed scripts seems a recipe for 
unending grief.


On 12/18/2012 7:06 PM, John R Levine wrote:
>> In the draft you point to, would it suffice if you could include the
>> actual unicode character in the parenthesis (preferably along with the
>> description, but that seems to be a minor detail.)  If so, that would
>> seem to preserve readability if some script elements are missing,
>> while having enhanced value when they are resent.
> Sure, but if it turns out that only 1% of the people reading RFCs are
> using devices that can't display accented characters, I think it'd make
> more sense just to show the accented characters and do some hack to
> insert descriptions or something for people stuck with those old ttys.
> Regards,
> John Levine, johnl at taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
> "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list