On 22 May 2026, at 0:08, Martin Thomson wrote:
As far as the RFC presentation goes, webfonts are a pretty workable way to deal with this.
On 22 May 2026, at 2:22, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
The chance that they are needed in the name/address/affiliation of an author of an RFC or ID are *exceedingly low*. Very similar considerations apply to the other characters in the Latin Extended-G block, and to other characters new in Unicode versions published in the 2020ies. The Unicode consortium wouldn't have waited that long to encode these characters if there were an everyday need for them. So that strongly supports John L.
To both Martins I ask: Do either of these statements mean that you think there needs to be a change to the draft, and if so, can you provide text?
pr -- Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/ All connections to the world are tenuous at best
-- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
