New draft (Was: I-D ACTION:draft-klensin-unicode-escapes-00.txt
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Mon, 29 January 2007 14:08 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1HBXBI-0007Gy-GY; Mon, 29 Jan 2007 09:08:24 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HBXBH-0007Gq-KM
for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Mon, 29 Jan 2007 09:08:23 -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 1HBXBG-00082w-8z
for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Mon, 29 Jan 2007 09:08:23 -0500
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=p3.JCK.COM)
by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1HBWdc-000LkU-Br
for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Mon, 29 Jan 2007 08:33:36 -0500
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 08:33:35 -0500
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: discuss@apps.ietf.org
Subject: New draft (Was: I-D
ACTION:draft-klensin-unicode-escapes-00.txt
Message-ID: <875A124D75A8B481E176CF06@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: 4d87d2aa806f79fed918a62e834505ca
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.
We have reached the point at which several people are repeating
essentially the same suggestions. That probably represents
progress, but it also indicates to me that the -00 version of
the draft has outlived its usefulness.
I've just submitted draft-klensin-unicode-escapes-01.txt and
assume it will show up in the posting directory today or
tomorrow.
Highlights (if I got things right):
* All of the typographic editorial errors that have been
identified have been fixed.
* The preference for \u / \U has been removed and the
document restructured to express no preference among the
several ways to denote Unicode code points. However,
the preference of many for paired delimiters has been
made explicit, as has a prohibition on surrogates.
* The issue of escaping escapes has been avoided,
leaving that problem to the applications and protocols
that use the escapes. That may not be good enough, but
it at least moves us forward and should facilitate a
focused discussion.
There are two sets of suggestions I haven't followed (yet):
* Frank made a strong recommendation that we make an
explicit and normative reference to W3C's CharMod spec
and call out several of its explicit rules. There is a
tradeoff with length, additional need to read other
documents, and general document and reading complexity.
It may no longer be needed. Opinions and comments
welcome.
* I have not touched the ABNF associated with the \u /
\U case. I have inserted an explicit placeholder but,
as discussed on this list, I think we need to figure out
what we want to do and then go back and adjust the
metalanguage productions. In particular, there has
been one strong suggestion, with which I agree, that we
not take the obvious approach of substituting %x5C.75
for "\u", since the intent is a character string
abstraction (independent of the implementation character
set) rather than specific octets.
thanks,
john
- New draft (Was: I-D ACTION:draft-klensin-unicode-… John C Klensin
- Re: New draft (Was: I-D ACTION:draft-klensin-unic… John C Klensin
- Re: New draft (Was: I-D ACTION:draft-klensin-unic… Tim Bray
- Re: New draft (Was: I-D ACTION:draft-klensin-unic… John C Klensin
- Re: New draft (Was: I-D ACTION:draft-klensin-unic… Tim Bray
- Re: New draft (Was: I-D ACTION:draft-klensin-unic… John C Klensin
- Re: New draft (Was: I-D ACTION:draft-klensin-unic… Clive D.W. Feather
- Re: New draft (Was: I-D ACTION:draft-klensin-unic… Clive D.W. Feather
- Re: New draft (Was: I-D ACTION:draft-klensin-unic… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- I-D.klensin-unicode-escapes (was: New Draft) Frank Ellermann
- I-D.klensin-unicode-escapes (was: New Draft) Frank Ellermann
- ABNF (was: New draft) Frank Ellermann
- Re: New draft (Was: I-D ACTION:draft-klensin-unic… Clive D.W. Feather
- Re: I-D.klensin-unicode-escapes (was: New Draft) Clive D.W. Feather
- Re: I-D.klensin-unicode-escapes (was: New Draft) Clive D.W. Feather
- Re: ABNF (was: New draft) Clive D.W. Feather
- Re: ABNF Frank Ellermann
- draft-klensin-unicode-escapes-01 (was: New Draft) John C Klensin
- Re: I-D.klensin-unicode-escapes Frank Ellermann
- Re: I-D.klensin-unicode-escapes John C Klensin
- Re: draft-klensin-unicode-escapes-01 Frank Ellermann
- Re: I-D.klensin-unicode-escapes (was: New Draft) Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: I-D.klensin-unicode-escapes (was: New Draft) John C Klensin
- Re: draft-klensin-unicode-escapes-01 (was: New Dr… Clive D.W. Feather
- Re: draft-klensin-unicode-escapes-01 (was: New Dr… John C Klensin
- Re: draft-klensin-unicode-escapes-01 (was: New Dr… Clive D.W. Feather