Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2
Jim Willeke <jim@willeke.com> Thu, 04 June 2009 00:54 UTC
Return-Path: <jim@willeke.com>
X-Original-To: ldapext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ldapext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 707333A685C for <ldapext@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jun 2009 17:54:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.668
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.668 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_22=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_43=0.6, MISSING_HEADERS=1.292, SARE_SUB_ENC_UTF8=0.152]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LXD8bAqu3exk for <ldapext@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jun 2009 17:54:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from yw-out-2324.google.com (yw-out-2324.google.com [74.125.46.31]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4C143A67D2 for <ldapext@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Jun 2009 17:54:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yw-out-2324.google.com with SMTP id 3so342329ywj.49 for <ldapext@ietf.org>; Wed, 03 Jun 2009 17:54:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.151.14.5 with SMTP id r5mr2292758ybi.300.1244076859272; Wed, 03 Jun 2009 17:54:19 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <245BF18B-2066-4E36-9502-16F4A3140D9E@Isode.com>
References: <49C497F9.7010200@zioup.com> <49C870C6.4010803@zioup.com> <E94B7389-9A6D-4CB6-BB2C-649CCD3FD15B@Isode.com> <49CB192E.5050105@zioup.com> <49CB211C.6070108@eb2bcom.com> <49CB87FE.1050809@zioup.com> <49CC01DE.6040506@eb2bcom.com> <4A24557D.7030006@zioup.com> <4A26A05D.8040105@zioup.com> <245BF18B-2066-4E36-9502-16F4A3140D9E@Isode.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 20:54:19 -0400
Message-ID: <b662a94e0906031754n217f96c8t55e1e0c34f11bb86@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jim Willeke <jim@willeke.com>
Cc: ldapext@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000e0cd6adaa453076046b7b3777"
Subject: Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2
X-BeenThere: ldapext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: LDAP Extension Working Group <ldapext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ldapext>, <mailto:ldapext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ldapext>
List-Post: <mailto:ldapext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ldapext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ldapext>, <mailto:ldapext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 00:54:23 -0000
I would agree with Kurt's and Howard's comments. Perhaps what is really required is a good tool to display and edit the existing LDIF formatted files that in a view that is deemed acceptable. -jim Jim Willeke On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 8:44 PM, Kurt Zeilenga <Kurt.Zeilenga@isode.com>wrote: > > On Jun 3, 2009, at 9:10 AM, Yves Dorfsman wrote: > >> Is the idea of a here document syntax too ridiculous ? >> > > There are a number of problems with it. Personally, I think what Steven > already offered (and likely implemented) is better, though I am concerned > about line separators. As Howard comments kind of suggests, when you have a > value which is multi-lined, it's the syntax that controls what line > separators are used, not the LDIF. For instance, in some syntaxes, a $ is > used to as a line separator. > > The problem with your proposal, and Steven's, is that LDIF line separators > and value line separators are one and the same thing. While one might be > case occasionally, it cannot be expected to be generally the case. > > LDIF is first and foremost an interchange format. Conversion from LDAP > PDU->LDIF Record->LDAP PDU MUST produce as output the input, octet for octet > for every "data" component (the DN, every attribute description and > associated values, etc.). > > Is UTF-8 support in LDIF not that important ? >> > > LDIF being a proper interchange format is important. UTF-8 support (other > than being able to interchange values whose syntax is UTF-8 encoded) is > cosmetic. > > Adding UTF-8 support does appear to be in support of improving LDIF as a > proper interchange format. It seems to be driven by other goals, such as > trying to make LDIF files displayable. Given that LDAP does not constrain > attribute value syntaxes (even directory strings can contain arbitrary > sequences of Unicode code points), the goal of making LDIF files displayable > is not terribly feasible. > > I note that even today, ASCII LDIF files might not display properly without > special handling, such as for line separators. But with UTF-8, line > separators are only the tip of iceberg of display problems. > > I'm not convinced that removing the ASCII restrictions will be a good > thing. Not only do I doubt it will have a net positive on displayability of > LDIF for those who have a displayability goal (I don't this goal), I think > it will have a net negative impact on interoperability and user confusion, > such as when the user creates a file using one Unicode normalization > algorithm, but is trying to set values which require a different Unicode > normalization value. > > Am I the only one thinking xml is not a good replacement for LDIF, >> > > There already exists a number of XML replacements of LDIF, such as DSML... > so I guess at least some do think XML is a good replacement for LDIF. > > if so, should we help Steven with the xmled RFC ? >> > > What Steven and Andrew have done is define an extension for LDIF to allow > XML values to be represented in a human-readable format instead of requiring > the use use of base64. Unfortunately his proposal has interchange issues > (see the I-D's security considerations section). This, I think, is a fatal > problem with this extension. > > -- Kurt > > > >> >> Thanks. >> >> >> Yves Dorfsman wrote: >> >>> Steven Legg wrote: >>> >>>> See http://www.xmled.info/drafts/draft-sciberras-xed-eldif-05.txt >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> I did look at it, personally I find it difficult for humans, for >>> diff'ing etc... XML has its place, but so does pure text. >>> >>>> Yes I was wondering about that, do we need multi-line values as work >>>>> around because schemas aren't precise enough ? >>>>> >>>> >>>> No, we need them because sheets of paper, computer screens and RFCs are >>>> not infinitely wide. :-) Human-readability, line breaks and indenting >>>> tend >>>> to go hand-in-hand. >>>> >>> I've been thinking about this and trying a few things. My conclusion is >>> that the best solution would be the good old here document. >>> objectclass: inetOrgPerson >>> organizationName:<<EOT >>> The two line >>> company >>> EOT >>> sn: Jensen >>> With the following specifications: >>> Any of the following characters (or sequence in the case of CR+LF) can be >>> used as a separator (<SEP>): >>> LF (U+000A), CR (U+000D), CR+LF (U+000D followed by U+000A), NEL >>> (U+0085), FF (U+000C), LS (U+2028), PS U+2029) >>> Any sequence of characters can be used instead of EOT, but cannot include >>> a separator character. The same sequence has to be used at the begining and >>> the end. >>> Any UTF-8 character, except separators, can be used on each line. >>> Any separator can be used to separate the lines. >>> The text start after EOT<SEP>, and finishes with the last character >>> before <SEP>EOT. The organization name in the example above is exactly two >>> lines, the last separator is not part of the text. >>> No need or possibility to escape characters, no possibility of folding >>> lines . >>> >> >> >> -- >> Yves. >> http://www.sollers.ca/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ldapext mailing list >> Ldapext@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ldapext >> > > _______________________________________________ > Ldapext mailing list > Ldapext@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ldapext >
- [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Yves Dorfsman
- Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Kurt Zeilenga
- Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Yves Dorfsman
- Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Kurt Zeilenga
- Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Kurt Zeilenga
- Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Yves Dorfsman
- Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Yves Dorfsman
- Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Yves Dorfsman
- Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Steven Legg
- Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Ludovic Poitou
- Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Jim Willeke
- Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Yves Dorfsman
- Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Yves Dorfsman
- Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Jim Willeke
- Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Steven Legg
- Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Steven Legg
- Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Michael Ströder
- Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Yves Dorfsman
- Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Yves Dorfsman
- Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Yves Dorfsman
- Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Howard Chu
- Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Kurt Zeilenga
- Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Jim Willeke
- Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Steven Legg
- Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Steven Legg
- Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Michael Ströder
- Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Yves Dorfsman
- Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Yves Dorfsman
- Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Michael Ströder
- Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Michael Ströder
- Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Kurt Zeilenga
- Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Kurt Zeilenga
- Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Yves Dorfsman
- Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Kurt Zeilenga
- Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Michael Ströder
- Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Yves Dorfsman
- Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Yves Dorfsman
- Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Michael Ströder
- Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Kurt Zeilenga
- Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Yves Dorfsman
- Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Kurt Zeilenga
- Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Yves Dorfsman
- Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Kurt Zeilenga
- Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Kurt Zeilenga
- Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Howard Chu
- Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Kurt Zeilenga
- Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Steven Legg
- Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Kurt Zeilenga
- Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Steven Legg
- Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Michael Ströder
- Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Michael Ströder
- Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Michael Ströder
- Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Michael Ströder
- Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Kurt Zeilenga
- Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Kurt Zeilenga
- Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Steven Legg
- Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Steven Legg
- Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Yves Dorfsman
- Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Yves Dorfsman
- Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Michael Ströder
- Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Kurt Zeilenga
- Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Kurt Zeilenga
- Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Yves Dorfsman
- Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Steven Legg
- Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Michael Ströder
- Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Kurt Zeilenga
- Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2 Steven Legg