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

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Wed, 06 November 2019 04:46 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.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 9929E120855 for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 20:46:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.281
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.281 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.399, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.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 rYKrm_NbWln2 for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 20:46:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C08D120170 for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 20:46:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Svantevit.local (99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id xA64kjCR089310 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 5 Nov 2019 22:46:46 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1573015607; bh=XzPgJz4g/kA2OYWUjNsv9mcogN3i2ZKCFJ1aWexwV6I=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=Wj43eUuBbS7WU3nBP2W3SbpBGnaQwB4EOud2drgMFF/quAxA0VwLr5/n1kG+2bJs+ sMEsR5KdEi1vq1kFyFykpOxyDqeyMpkRpzwB/jekv0dI6yC5oH8R9Hd5hKSGjbqbx3 Awu1LUtlP/K+NHgqWWOOOZS5MrQ72UJ3i5mckiLs=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228] claimed to be Svantevit.local
To: Tom Pusateri <pusateri@bangj.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>
References: <157288484424.16663.3995065379449438987.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <E2A5257F-8926-4570-81E1-288DDDC6DA34@bangj.com> <eca7be6d-dabe-21b1-725f-36c897940382@nostrum.com> <8BE4B9D2-4145-43C4-AA9E-2DAE68F2765F@bangj.com>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <515fd70d-27c4-b23d-0050-6d3501803115@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 22:46:40 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <8BE4B9D2-4145-43C4-AA9E-2DAE68F2765F@bangj.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/c024xOsorUVCSuIAxW-uh1I1PM8>
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 04:46:52 -0000

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.