Re: New draft (Was: I-D ACTION:draft-klensin-unicode-escapes-00.txt

["Tim Bray" <[e-mail]>]

On 1/31/07, John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:

> While I think I agree with you about your second proposed
> paragraph above ("New protocols..."), I think my instructions
> with this document is to keep it narrow and to focus on escapes,
> not on general advice to protocol designers about Unicode or
> internationalization more broadly.   So I don't want to go so
> far as to make specific (or even specific-sounding) suggestions.

I hadn't read 2277 in years; having done so, I think that it says what
I was trying to say quite effectively.  De facto, this spec is really
only usable for text (in the 2277 sense) when internationalizing
existing protocols.

> This effort, and some others, have convinced me that we are
> getting closer to the time at which RFC 2277/ BCP 18 needs to be
> reopened, reviewed, and updated, but this document isn't the
> right place to do it, at least IMO.

Really? Having just re-read that, I found little to disagree with or
want to change.  My pain point is 2223, but everyone knows that. -Tim