IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Wed, 24 January 2007 15:31 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H9k66-0003vp-Tv; Wed, 24 Jan 2007 10:31:38 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H9k65-0003vf-LD for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Jan 2007 10:31:37 -0500
Received: from mx2.nic.fr ([192.134.4.11]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H9k64-000853-Cd for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Jan 2007 10:31:37 -0500
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mx2.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77C9F26C281; Wed, 24 Jan 2007 16:31:26 +0100 (CET)
Received: from relay2.nic.fr (relay2.nic.fr [192.134.4.163]) by mx2.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D7D526C26D; Wed, 24 Jan 2007 16:31:26 +0100 (CET)
Received: from bortzmeyer.nic.fr (batilda.nic.fr [192.134.4.69]) by relay2.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F61658E9F0; Wed, 24 Jan 2007 16:31:26 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 16:31:26 +0100
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Subject: Re: Next step (Was: I-D ACTION:draft-klensin-unicode-escapes-00.txt
Message-ID: <20070124153126.GA12389@nic.fr>
References: <B1930392E9C03720F9E495F8@p3.JCK.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <B1930392E9C03720F9E495F8@p3.JCK.COM>
X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 4.0
X-Kernel: Linux 2.6.17-2-686 i686
Organization: NIC France
X-URL: http://www.nic.fr/
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7a6398bf8aaeabc7a7bb696b6b0a2aad
Cc: discuss@apps.ietf.org
X-BeenThere: discuss@apps.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols <discuss.apps.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>, <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:discuss@apps.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>, <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: discuss-bounces@apps.ietf.org

On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 09:14:21AM -0500,
 John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote 
 a message of 52 lines which said:

> I don't see how to get agreement on a single form: almost everyone
> who doesn't like \u / \U likes something different...  there is no
> evidence in the notes I have received that indicates one uniform
> strong preference in the community as to what the syntax should be.

But there is (may be) a rough consensus that every scheme with
explicit delimiters (&#xNNNN; or \u{NNNNN}) is better than any scheme
without them? If so, it would be a progress.

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email