Re: draft-klensin-unicode-escapes-05 and draft-klensin-net-utf8-05

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Mon, 08 October 2007 10:08 UTC

Return-path: <discuss-bounces@apps.ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IepX2-0000l8-9A; Mon, 08 Oct 2007 06:08:12 -0400
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IepX1-0000l1-Ao for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Oct 2007 06:08:11 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IepX1-0000kt-1E for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Oct 2007 06:08:11 -0400
Received: from mx2.nic.fr ([192.134.4.11]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IepWz-00011U-RQ for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Oct 2007 06:08:11 -0400
Received: from mx2.nic.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx2.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id 7CEF21C010F; Mon, 8 Oct 2007 12:08:09 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from relay2.nic.fr (relay2.nic.fr [192.134.4.163]) by mx2.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 785501C0105; Mon, 8 Oct 2007 12:08:09 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bortzmeyer.nic.fr (batilda.nic.fr [192.134.4.69]) by relay2.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 752D358ECCE; Mon, 8 Oct 2007 12:08:09 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 12:08:09 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
Subject: Re: draft-klensin-unicode-escapes-05 and draft-klensin-net-utf8-05
Message-ID: <20071008100809.GA3118@nic.fr>
References: <D88739D9B4DB164FDD94809C@p3.JCK.COM> <fectfr$6v1$1@sea.gmane.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <fectfr$6v1$1@sea.gmane.org>
X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 4.0
X-Kernel: Linux 2.6.18-4-686 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: 798b2e660f1819ae38035ac1d8d5e3ab
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 Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 11:30:03AM +0200,
 Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> wrote 
 a message of 150 lines which said:

> In section 5.1 you don't mention a similar trick for "\u'"
> constructs, and "implementors" (i.e. protocol designers)
> might pick some '\\' convention to get a literal '\'.  Is
> that as it should be?

It seems well-covered in the current draft:

> Since this specification does not recommend one specific syntax,
> protocols specifications that use escapes MUST define the syntax
> they are using, including any necessary escapes to permit the escape
> sequence to be used literally.
[...]
> In addition, when an escape is needed for the escape mechanism
> itself, the optimal one of those might differ from one context to
> another.

I would have preferred an official recommandation but it seems there
is no consensus for one specific 'escape the escape' format.