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

Joe Hildebrand jhildebr at cisco.com
Thu May 31 14:56:49 PDT 2012


On 5/31/12 11:02 AM, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> 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

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 (?)
> 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
> 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?

> regards,


> Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
> _
rfc-interest mailing
> list
rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> fc-interest

Joe Hildebrand

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list