A proposed solution for descriptions

John Cowan cowan at ccil.org
Mon Jun 19 05:54:04 CEST 2006

Mark Crispin scripsit:

> I prefer the latter, since <U+2019> is a metaword convention, already in 
> use, that states "Unicode codepoint 2019 goes here".  &#x2019; is SGML 
> blather that should never be inflicted upon innocent human eyes.

I think it's simply too late for this preference to succeed.  There is
no difference in concision or parsing reliability (both are bounded
forms), it's all in what you are used to.  Some are used to one,
some to the other, and some to both.  As of now, the registry and the
defining I-D have been accepted by the IETF.  In any case, both of them
are a higher-level protocol from the point of view of Unicode plain text.

> In the medium term, I expect that the IETF will allow plaintext 
> documents in UTF-8.  Thus, we can use fixed-width font Unicode art 
> instead of ASCII art, and it'll be possible to use the U+2019 codepoint 
> instead of an ASCII representation.

When that day comes, we can amend the registry and the RFC.

I suggest you call for help,                    John Cowan
or learn the difficult art of mud-breathing.    cowan at ccil.org
        --Great-Souled Sam                      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list