Re: I-D.klensin-unicode-escapes (was: New Draft)

["Clive D.W. Feather" <[e-mail]>]

Frank Ellermann said:
>>     ... U+NN syntax for code point references specified in the Unicode
>>     Standard, where NN is between four and six hexadecimal digits.
> No, folks could misinterpret U+NN as "anything up to 6 digits".

Um, the wording I've used is almost identical to that in the charmod
document (section 1.3).

>> In 5.2, you've said "generally considered ugly and awkward" but I'm
>> not aware of anyone else who's made that complaint.
> +1  Obviously John hates it, that would justify "often".  Others don't
> like backslash-U for various reasons, not only ugly and awkward, also
> confusing (due to various conventions), unclear (lack of delimiter),

Solvable if we include a delimiter.

> and a royal PITA in conjunction with <quoted-string>, when it results
> in multiple backslashes.

Um, every scheme has that problem, surely? See "&amp;#x1234;".

>> In 6 you need to copy in all the security stuff from Unicode
> IMO not "all", folks are supposed to know RFC 3629, it's a STD.

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

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather  | Work:  <[e-mail]>   | Tel:    [phone]
Internet Expert     | Home:  <[e-mail]>  | Fax:    [phone]
Demon Internet      | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Mobile: [phone]
THUS plc            |                            |