Re: Next step (Was: I-D ACTION:draft-klensin-unicode-escapes-00.txt
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Wed, 24 January 2007 20:42 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1H9ox6-0003CY-DP; Wed, 24 Jan 2007 15:42:40 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H9ox5-0003CR-I7
for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Jan 2007 15:42:39 -0500
Received: from ns.jck.com ([209.187.148.211] helo=bs.jck.com)
by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H9ox4-00086x-8n
for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Jan 2007 15:42:39 -0500
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=p3.JCK.COM)
by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34)
id 1H9ox3-00045t-QD; Wed, 24 Jan 2007 15:42:37 -0500
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 15:42:37 -0500
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
Subject: Re: Next step (Was: I-D ACTION:draft-klensin-unicode-escapes-00.txt
Message-ID: <48AE8F8343DFAA3BC6DEB491@p3.JCK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <20070124153126.GA12389@nic.fr>
References: <B1930392E9C03720F9E495F8@p3.JCK.COM>
<20070124153126.GA12389@nic.fr>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.7 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: ffa9dfbbe7cc58b3fa6b8ae3e57b0aa3
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 Wednesday, 24 January, 2007 16:31 +0100 Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> wrote: > 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. Much as I would personally prefer that answer, I haven't seen such a consensus emerge yet. john
- Next step (Was: I-D ACTION:draft-klensin-unicode-… John C Klensin
- Re: Next step (Was: I-D ACTION:draft-klensin-unic… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: Next step (Was: I-D ACTION:draft-klensin-unic… der Mouse
- Re: Next step (Was: I-D ACTION:draft-klensin-unic… John C Klensin
- Re: Next step (Was: I-D ACTION:draft-klensin-unic… John C Klensin
- Re: Next step Frank Ellermann
- Re: Next step (Was: I-D ACTION:draft-klensin-unic… John C Klensin
- Re: Next step (Was: I-D ACTION:draft-klensin-unic… Clive D.W. Feather
- Re: Next step (Was: I-D ACTION:draft-klensin-unic… Clive D.W. Feather
- Re: Next step (Was: I-D ACTION:draft-klensin-unic… Clive D.W. Feather
- Re: Next step Clive D.W. Feather
- Re: Next step (Was: I-D ACTION:draft-klensin-unic… John C Klensin
- Re: Next step Frank Ellermann
- Re: Next step Frank Ellermann