Re: Typographical error in draft-klensin-unicode-escapes-00

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Monday, 22 January, 2007 09:22 +0000 "Clive D.W. Feather"
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> We may have to agree to disagree. When I see "4*4XXX", it
> makes me wonder if the author actually meant "4*" or "*4" and
> misunderstood the notation.

I am skipping ABNF quibbles for -01, leaving it for -02 (I
hope).  It would take very little more of this particular
discussion for me to shift back to pure BNF and write a
justification for it rather than trying to use ABNF at all.  The
tool is, IMO, complicating clear expression here, rather than
aiding it.   However, see my note from yesterday.   However...
 
> Incidentally, there's no significance to the groupings of 4 in
> the \u notation, so I see little point in introducing
> "Hex-quad".

That terminology was appropriated from the C documents.

> The term "BMP" is, as I understand it, deprecated
> these days.

I thought so too, until I discovered that it is extensively used
in the Unicode 5.0 book.    Take it up with the UTC :-(

> So I would just write:
> 
>     EmbeddedUnicodeChar = %x5C.75 4HexDigit / %x5C.55 8HexDigit
> 
> or if you really want:
> 
>     EmbeddedUnicodeChar = UnicodeShortForm / UnicodeLongForm
>     UnicodeShortForm    = %x5C.75 4HexDigit
>     UnicodeLongForm     = %x5C.55 8HexDigit
> 
> [Note that you omitted the / from your definition.]

Caught and fixed.  Thanks.
    john