|
Re: FWD: I-D ACTION:draft-klensin-unicode-escapes-00.txt: msg#00011ietf.apps-discuss
John C Klensin said: > If you have any interest in internationalization issues, a > careful reading of, and comments on, this proposal would be > greatly appreciated. Please remove the term "extended ASCII" from 1.1 - there is no such thing. If you want to talk about an 8 bit character set, then "the ISO 8859 family" would do. At the end of 3.1, you can't say "the same considerations" apply to Punycode and such encodings, because they *are* more compact (your third and textually closest point). I disagree with the claim that the \u notation is easier to read and less "ugly and awkward" than the HTML one. Is: Ank\uabcdef really easier to parse than: Ankꯍef ? I think - particularly in contexts using alphabetic text - that having a clear and obvious delimiter is much more preferable and will produce far less mistakes. I can accept that the specific HTML notation is a bit clumsy, and in particular that the use of 'x' implies other bases are available. Therefore I would prefer something like \u(xxxx). The text in 3.2 implies that \U is followed by 6 digits, not 8. That risk of confusion (particularly since Unicode ends at U+10FFFF) is itself reason for concern with any undelimited option. I haven't seen a "consensus" that there isn't a problem with being case-sensitive; the fact that you messed up the ABNF on this particular point is evidence that this is unwise. I know C does it that way (and in retrospect, I would have fought harder for doing it differently), but C has always been case sensitive in such matters. IETF protocols mostly aren't. Reference [ISO-C-Chars] is wrong - the \u and \U notation was added to ISO 9899 in the 1999 edition, not in that TR. They aren't extensions; they are part of the core language. -- Clive D.W. Feather | Work: <clive@xxxxxxxxx> | Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 Internet Expert | Home: <clive@xxxxxxxxxx> | Fax: +44 870 051 9937 Demon Internet | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Mobile: +44 7973 377646 THUS plc | | |
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| Previous by Date: | Re: Typographical error in draft-klensin-unicode-escapes-00: 00011, Clive D.W. Feather |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Typographical error in draft-klensin-unicode-escapes-00: 00011, John C Klensin |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Escaping the escape (Was: I-D ACTION:draft-klensin-unicode-escapes-00.txti: 00011, Clive D.W. Feather |
| Next by Thread: | Re: FWD: I-D ACTION:draft-klensin-unicode-escapes-00.txt: 00011, John C Klensin |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
| News | FAQ | advertise |