Re: Why the normative form of IETF Standards is ASCII

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(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> 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

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf