Re: Next step (Was: I-D ACTION:draft-klensin-unicode-escapes-00.txt
"Clive D.W. Feather" <clive@demon.net> Thu, 25 January 2007 08:01 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1H9zXz-000727-Kk; Thu, 25 Jan 2007 03:01:27 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H9zXy-00071C-Ha
for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Jan 2007 03:01:26 -0500
Received: from anchor-internal-1.mail.demon.net ([195.173.56.100])
by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H9zXu-0004Ij-4c
for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Jan 2007 03:01:26 -0500
Received: from finch-staff-1.server.demon.net (finch-staff-1.server.demon.net [193.195.224.1])
by anchor-internal-1.mail.demon.net with ESMTP� id l0P81I0X001275Thu, 25 Jan 2007 08:01:18 GMT
Received: from clive by finch-staff-1.server.demon.net with local (Exim 3.36
#1) id 1H9zXq-00053L-00; Thu, 25 Jan 2007 08:01:18 +0000
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 08:01:18 +0000
From: "Clive D.W. Feather" <clive@demon.net>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Subject: Re: Next step (Was: I-D ACTION:draft-klensin-unicode-escapes-00.txt
Message-ID: <20070125080118.GE18174@finch-staff-1.thus.net>
References: <B1930392E9C03720F9E495F8@p3.JCK.COM>
<20070124153126.GA12389@nic.fr>
<48AE8F8343DFAA3BC6DEB491@p3.JCK.COM>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <48AE8F8343DFAA3BC6DEB491@p3.JCK.COM>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7d33c50f3756db14428398e2bdedd581
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
John C Klensin said:
>> 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.
Well, let's start by seeing if there is.
I've seen three people here in favour of it. I've seen you saying that one
variety (the XML one) is ugly, but I don't know if you think that that
outweighs the benefits of explicit delimiters.
So: is there anybody here - including John - who thinks that the chosen
format SHOULD NOT use explicit delimiters?
--
Clive D.W. Feather | Work: <clive@demon.net> | Tel: +44 20 8495 6138
Internet Expert | Home: <clive@davros.org> | Fax: +44 870 051 9937
Demon Internet | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Mobile: +44 7973 377646
THUS plc | |
- 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