[rfc-i] open issues: character sets of examples

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Thu May 31 11:15:46 PDT 2012


(see my other post)


On 5/31/2012 11:02 AM, Andrew Sullivan 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 denote
> protocol examples using the character sets those examples support";
> and, by implication, "Want broader character encoding for body of
> document".
> 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 be
> helpful is that they actually portray the case under discussion.
> Since I sometimes work on internationalization issues, this
> necessarily entails 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 (ʼ) often
> resembles the character U+0027, APOSTROPHE ('), then the claim will
> perhaps be more convincing (to those using Unicode in their display).
> "Ah," the counter-argument says, "but not everyone is using Unicode!"
> Surely, however, this is a case where an encoding tag solves that
> problem?  We seem to be capable of handling this in nearly every
> browser 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?
> Best regards,
> A

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list