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

"Frank Ellermann" <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> Tue, 09 October 2007 09:43 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 1IfBd3-0000Pf-V5; Tue, 09 Oct 2007 05:43:53 -0400
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IfBd2-0000Mo-OA for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Oct 2007 05:43:52 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IfBd2-0000Mg-Ee for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Oct 2007 05:43:52 -0400
Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2] helo=ciao.gmane.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IfBcy-0008RT-3b for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Oct 2007 05:43:52 -0400
Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IfBcj-0001Gu-SR for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Oct 2007 09:43:33 +0000
Received: from mail.st-michaelis.de ([217.86.170.58]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <discuss@apps.ietf.org>; Tue, 09 Oct 2007 09:43:33 +0000
Received: from nobody by mail.st-michaelis.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <discuss@apps.ietf.org>; Tue, 09 Oct 2007 09:43:33 +0000
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: discuss@apps.ietf.org
From: "Frank Ellermann" <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
Subject: Re: draft-klensin-unicode-escapes-05 and draft-klensin-net-utf8-05
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 11:40:48 +0200
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <fefifc$pnc$1@sea.gmane.org>
References: <D88739D9B4DB164FDD94809C@p3.JCK.COM><20071008141946.GL71445@finch-staff-1.thus.net> <40631CD1A59A65DA1B88F394@[192.168.1.110]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: mail.st-michaelis.de
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 93238566e09e6e262849b4f805833007
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 wrote:

 [bare CR vs. bare LF] 
> I could try to incorporate a little more text along those lines 
> in the document

Maybe.  The main issue why I mentioned it are some inconsistencies
in the normative language (MUST vs. SHOULD) wrt CR.  And my odd
impression that net-utf8 tries to "ban" HT and bare CR, but still
"permits" FF and bare LF.  I'd like it better if both bare CR and
bare LF are in one group, and both HT and FF in another group.

> please remember that it has already been criticized for 
> containing too much history and explanation

I think at least Stephane and I liked the historical parts very
much, e.g. the IAC (0xFF) info at the end of appendix B is not
only fascinating, it's important.  OTOH I'm not sure that net-utf8
is a good place to discuss general Unicode and NFC issues, let
alone implications for IDNAbis.  Maybe an informative reference
to section 3 in RFC 4690 could cover most of this.

 Frank