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

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Wednesday, 31 January, 2007 22:18 -0800 Tim Bray
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 1/31/07, John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> While I think I agree with you about your second proposed
>> paragraph above ("New protocols..."), I think my instructions
>> with this document is to keep it narrow and to focus on
>> escapes, not on general advice to protocol designers about
>> Unicode or internationalization more broadly.   So I don't
>> want to go so far as to make specific (or even
>> specific-sounding) suggestions.
> 
> I hadn't read 2277 in years; having done so, I think that it
> says what
> I was trying to say quite effectively.  De facto, this spec is
> really
> only usable for text (in the 2277 sense) when
> internationalizing existing protocols.

That is more or less what the text says now... watch for -02
probably sometime next week.

>> This effort, and some others, have convinced me that we are
>> getting closer to the time at which RFC 2277/ BCP 18 needs to
>> be reopened, reviewed, and updated, but this document isn't
>> the right place to do it, at least IMO.
> 
> Really? Having just re-read that, I found little to disagree
> with or
> want to change.  My pain point is 2223, but everyone knows
> that. -Tim

To give just one example, I think there is a case to be made
about making/keeping text NFC complaint or at least examining
that question on a per-protocol basis.

    john