draft-klensin-unicode-escapes-02.txt
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Mon, 05 February 2007 16:01 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HE6H7-0008TV-B6; Mon, 05 Feb 2007 11:01:01 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HE6H6-0008TM-Io for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Mon, 05 Feb 2007 11:01:00 -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 1HE6H5-0007Os-9A for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Mon, 05 Feb 2007 11:01:00 -0500
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=p3.JCK.COM) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1HE5fG-000F87-8v for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Mon, 05 Feb 2007 10:21:54 -0500
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 10:21:53 -0500
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: discuss@apps.ietf.org
Subject: draft-klensin-unicode-escapes-02.txt
Message-ID: <74711BCF624DBEC4F2C000C5@p3.JCK.COM>
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: ea4ac80f790299f943f0a53be7e1a21a
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
Hi. I've just placed another version of the "unicode escapes" document into the posting queue. It should be announced to this list when posted. I believe I have incorporated all of the changes suggested so far that haven't gotten pushback, including adjusting the ABNF that has been controversial (I even changed 4*4 -> 4; others seem to be more concerned about that syntax preference than I am). It occurs to me now --after I sent the document off-- that the \u / \U form is the only one for which there is ABNF. This is the legacy from its previous featured role. Recommendations from others as to whether I should just drop that ABNF, leave things as they are, or add ABNF to the other forms would be appreciated. Anyone who prefers the latter should please send the ABNF they would like to see. The thing I have _not_ done is to try to expand this document into making general suggestions or requirements on the use of Unicode. It assumes that the strings that one might want to escape are valid and reasonable and that the definition of "valid and reasonable" is the province of other documents. More comments welcome, but I hope we are converging. john
- draft-klensin-unicode-escapes-02.txt John C Klensin
- Re: draft-klensin-unicode-escapes-02.txt Clive D.W. Feather
- Re: draft-klensin-unicode-escapes-02.txt Frank Ellermann
- Re: draft-klensin-unicode-escapes-02.txt Philip Guenther
- Re: draft-klensin-unicode-escapes-02.txt Clive D.W. Feather
- draft-klensin-unicode-escapes-03.txt (was: Re: dr… John C Klensin
- Re: draft-klensin-unicode-escapes-03.txt Frank Ellermann