Re: I-D.klensin-unicode-escapes

[Frank Ellermann <[e-mail]>]

Clive D.W. Feather wrote:

 [U+NN]
> Um, the wording I've used is almost identical to that in the charmod
> document (section 1.3).

The wording is okay, but IMO your reversed mnemonic U+[[N]N]NNNN is
better than only U+NN.  With readers you never know, some like me never
look into the prose if the ABNF is apparently clear, while others also
including me look for the examples before ever reading a single word of
the prose or ABNF, and if I understood John correctly his approach is
more like the opposite, he looks into the ABNF if prose and examples
are hopeless... ;-)  

>> a royal PITA in conjunction with <quoted-string>, when it results
>> in multiple backslashes.
 
> Um, every scheme has that problem, surely? See "&amp;#x1234;".

Yes, but it doesn't have to fight with putting <quoted-string>s into
MIME parameter values and similar horrors, compare the RFC 3696 errata.

Escaping backslashes is a pain, the USEFOR WG needed some months^Wtime
to figure this out.  And for 2831bis it strikes again.  Probably it's
a matter of taste, I recall times when I desperately tried \\ or \\\\
or worse with sh or csh scripts.

> the security section needs to explicitly point at the security
> section of 3629; it's not enough to say "people should know it".

Yes.  Only copying the same old UTF-8 security considerations again and
again is boring, a distraction from "real" (specific and fresh) issues.

Frank