Re: Next step (Was: I-D ACTION:draft-klensin-unicode-escapes-00.txt

John C Klensin said:
> The mail seems to me to fall into three categories:
[...]
> I have seen nothing that expresses a strong preference for the
> "encode UTF-8 octets" forms instead of the "represent Unicode
> code points" forms.  The preference for the latter was the mail
> purpose of this document/ effort, so we are making progress.

Good.

I presume that we can also throw out any suggestion of using surrogates
for code points above U+FFFF.

> Let's assume that the issues in (1) and (2) can be fairly easily
> addressed,

Agreed - they're nitpicks rather than core issues. Once we've solved the
core points, they'll fall down easily.

> If it is
> helpful, I can immediately issue a new draft to correct the
> editorial and ABNF issues that have been identified, clearing up
> (1). 
> 
> But I'd like to focus on (3), which is where the showstoppers
> presumably lie.  

I would suggest we solve those first, then worry about a new draft.

> One possibility is that I can revise the
> document to indicate that there are many syntax possibilities
> and that decisions should be made on a protocol-by-protocol
> basis, being sure to note how to escape the escape for whatever
> is chosen.

I don't think that's beneficial at this point. Let's explore the delimited
versus undelimited question first.

-- 
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            |                            |