Re: Next step

["Clive D.W. Feather" <[e-mail]>]

Frank Ellermann said:
>    o  Java uses the form \uNNNN, but can represent characters outside
>       Plane 0 (i.e., above U+FFFF) only by the use of surrogate pairs.
> 
> One of the reasons why anything with \u or \U is a non-starter, there
> are too many incompatible conventions in use.

In particular, C uses \U with 8 hex digits because, at the time, there was
a serious possibility that ISO 10646 would still allow all 32 bits (or at
least 31) to be used.

Had it been a few years later, we would probably have make \U indicate 6
hex digits rather than 8.

>    There is one significant disadvantage of the recommended form.  The
> 
> No, there are more, folks will assume that it's a convention they know
> or a variant of U+NNNN[N[N]] with an arbitrary number of leading 0s.
> Nobody will use \U012345 when they can hope to get away with \U12345.

+1

>    should not introduce any security issues that are not present as a
> 
> My objections are also security considerations, because folks will
> screw up with this encoding it could cause havoc.

+2

If UTF-8 can make a security issue out of having more than one way to
encode a character, so can we.

[Which reminds me: being able to encode ASCII characters in this form might
be a security issue as well, or it might be a useful benefit.]

> In theory your proposal is compatible with C044, but in practice I
> fear that it won't work as you expect it.  I could live with e.g.
> "authors SHOULD either pick hex. NCRs as in XML or" (your proposal),
> but in fact I think that the XML-notation is much better.

My only, small, discomfort is that people will expect all protocols to
accept both hex (ሴ) and decimal (Ӓ).

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather  | Work:  <[e-mail]>   | Tel:    [phone]
Internet Expert     | Home:  <[e-mail]>  | Fax:    [phone]
Demon Internet      | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Mobile: [phone]
THUS plc            |                            |