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