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

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Thu May 31 11:17:00 PDT 2012

On 5/31/12 12:02 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

> 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!"

To go further: it doesn't particularly matter that not everyone is using
Unicode -- or, to be more precise, that not every reading or output
device supports Unicode. Even if I am using a device that does not
support Unicode, I can learn the code point numbers and understand from
the document convention that the character in parentheses is a Unicode
character. This might prompt me to also read the document using a device
that *does* support Unicode so that I can grok the spec in fullness, but
even without Unicode support on a particular device I can understand the
intent of the document.


Peter Saint-Andre

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list