Re: [Tools-discuss] UTF-8 box characters with wavy lines in XML2RFC v3 draft

Tom Pusateri <pusateri@bangj.com> Wed, 06 November 2019 05:30 UTC

Return-Path: <pusateri@bangj.com>
X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DD87120855 for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 21:30:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=bangj.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0hzVAaBB7ooX for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 21:30:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oj.bangj.com (69-77-154-174.static.skybest.com [69.77.154.174]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E10A8120804 for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 21:30:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.16.10.169] (mta-107-13-246-59.nc.rr.com [107.13.246.59]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by oj.bangj.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0237F2D794; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 00:30:20 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=bangj.com; s=201907; t=1573018220; bh=fNHvoEB7E3mUPbhcT6hwFxSAt7m89V/scn2y2I8I0iU=; h=From:Subject:Date:References:Cc:In-Reply-To:To:From; b=dwYaWwAkH6YWMVyk35v8oSjm2bG+FDdt+VZvmMWqFR+n6xmcQaP9ous2+hB8h926g Kmry3ZhZjx9rm5OkUcM4S6j7XgIc7VmjHpOv/pyE8crSmJiRrBlp2Z/K00e0sm0fQm bpm87IJ6O+WllsuDuKcJ3tocupW2EuWmkw7Xjy7aDPXLKsA1icVnVSnNr36Jzec9Hv YZEiuR/ojOu9ID1g/RMXzqD2lHr4xCb4yzslvEHVbtvmd4GLUdpLajSIJFrzAbJWnm Bv0mPrcuOE7zEiCM/IOKCiae7lL2uubnohxzsV+B1IOYxIvKgua0gqd12i695hVtQz qtCwNB7zqCn0Q==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Tom Pusateri <pusateri@bangj.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 00:30:19 -0500
Message-Id: <31468A3A-FF68-4F58-BC89-54B277A423F1@bangj.com>
References: <515fd70d-27c4-b23d-0050-6d3501803115@nostrum.com>
Cc: Tom Pusateri <pusateri=40bangj.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, tools-discuss <tools-discuss@ietf.org>, "Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)" <rse@rfc-editor.org>
In-Reply-To: <515fd70d-27c4-b23d-0050-6d3501803115@nostrum.com>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (17B84)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/GSYhfuXHCTLCt5RV4yb-8PO2Lr4>
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] UTF-8 box characters with wavy lines in XML2RFC v3 draft
X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion <tools-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tools-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:tools-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2019 05:30:22 -0000


> On Nov 5, 2019, at 11:57 PM, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>; wrote:
> 
> On 11/5/19 8:39 PM, Tom Pusateri wrote:
>> We were told on this list that box characters were allowed in artwork.
> 
> That's not on my radar. I'll let Heather (copied) chime in with her perspective.
> 
> In any case, the *general* problem you're running into is that many monospaced fonts don't include much more than the basic accented Latin character set, and this results in substituting glyphs from other fonts (rather than rendering tofu or the questionmark "replacement character") that are of a different width than the fixed one used by the font in question.
> 
> This is why, had the question come up generally, I would have pushed back on the notion of using box characters in diagrams [1]: even if it works okay on your system, it's likely to fail on someone's.
> 
> The *specific* problem you're running into is that Roboto Mono (or whatever your system uses as the default monospace font if you don't have Roboto Mono installed) doesn't contain "▶", and so it's getting pulled in from some other font, where it's wider.
> 
> /a
> 
> ____
> [1] That is, absent some compelling data showing that they are generally available in all -- or at least the vast majority of -- popular fixed-width fonts. I think the current episode shows where such an assertion would be implausible.

But we completely control the HTML document and can even embed the font.  This sounds like a solvable problem.

Tom