Hi, > As usual, the discussion of "ASCII plain text versus beyond-ASCII > plain text" has been mixed up with the essentially unrelated > discussion of "plain text versus another format." +1 Stefan > > Martin Rex <mrex at sap dot com> wrote: > >> Unicode characters are also a Royal PITA in specs, because they're >> non-discussable. There are extremely few people who can recognize >> all unicode codepoints from their glyphs (and a number of them can >> not be distinguished by their glyphs), and even worse, most >> machines/environments do not even have fonts to display glyphs for >> most of the unicode codepoints. > > The fact that Latin A and Cyrillic А and Greek Α look the same is not > a reason to stick with only 95 printable characters. RFCs are not > spoofing targets. > > The fact that most systems cannot display "most of the unicode > codepoints" is irrelevant, because most English-language texts (like > RFCs) use only characters in a small and well-known fraction of the > Unicode code space. You might expect an RFC to contain non-ASCII > characters like á and — that are part of a well-known and widely used > subset like WGL4. You would not expect it to contain Egyptian > hieroglyphs or Vai syllables or domino tiles. > > -- > Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org > RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- Stefan WINTER Ingenieur de Recherche Fondation RESTENA - Réseau Téléinformatique de l'Education Nationale et de la Recherche 6, rue Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi L-1359 Luxembourg Tel: +352 424409 1 Fax: +352 422473
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf