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