Re: [I18ndir] [art] New Version Notification for draft-bray-unichars-06.txt

[Steffen Nurpmeso <[e-mail]>]

Tim Bray wrote in
 <CAHBU6itgC07j0P5DcACDyHSjEOG6=j5kWE=[e-mail]>:
 |On Oct 2, 2023 at 9:14:18 AM, Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]> wrote:
 |>  The IETF could pound its collective fist and say "all ill-formed Unicode
 |> must be rejected”,
 |>
 |> Yes, please.
 |> The fact that this is the only reasonable way forward is the point of RFC
 |> 9413.
 |
 |Now we agree! And further (especially given the threats described in
 |Unicode TR36) you often also want to reject control codes and
 |noncharacters.  I think the IETF should be shouting this!

That is exactly what RFC 5198 already states very clearly:

  2.  Net-Unicode Definition
  ...

which goes from UTF-8, over the concept of lines (what the Bormann
draft calls 1d/2d) "if the protocol has the concept", over
controls in the US-ASCII range, and much more of that.
I thought the Bormann draft was a vaporised outline leaving off
all discussions of that 19 pages RFC (once the IETF knew about
pages).

Not that i take part in this thread!!
Only to reiterate what there is for 15 years.
Maybe buried in thousands of RFCs so noone sees it.
(I would _only_ refer to Unicode.  I do not understand why C0
sucks.  But i like that terminal control sequences will not be
used for future line-based protocols.)

Off-topic, but i vote for DKIM-Store: so that mailing-lists have
a place to store the originals they are about to replace or
modify, so verifieable chains to the originating domains can be
build, and i like my own DKIM-B?Subsignature idea.  All backward
compatible, which i also like.  DKIM stack not robots i like.
Likewise, good night.

--steffen
|
|Der Kragenbaer,                The moon bear,
|der holt sich munter           he cheerfully and one by one
|einen nach dem anderen runter  wa.ks himself off
|(By Robert Gernhardt)