Re: Reference for UTF8 in SSH UTF8 terminal mode

[Ron Frederick <[e-mail]>]

What’s the motivation for not directly referencing http://www.unicode.org/versions/latest/ <http://www.unicode.org/versions/latest/> here, or is that the link you had in mind to use in conjunction with the RFC? I understand and agree with the objection raised about not wanting to deal with the hassles of pay-to-play specifications and custom watermarked PDFs that would apply to some of the ISO/IEC docs, but that does not apply to the documents present on www.unicode.org <http://www.unicode.org/>. While I have no objection to linking to the RFC, it does reference quite an old version of the standard at this point.

Also, in your text below you switched from RFC 3629 to RFC 3929. The correct reference is the former (RFC 3629).

On Dec 12, 2016, at 11:17 AM, Daniel Migault <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Thank you all for the comments and feed backs. 
> 
> As far as I understand, adding the two references ISO/IEC 10646:2014 with URL and RFC3629 in the current document reaches a consensus. ISO will be informative while RFC3929 will be normative. 
> 
> I also noted that for the future, there is a demand that RFC3929 be refreshed with at least new references for Unicode. But I do not think we should wait for that now. 
> 
> If that is fine with everyone, I believe the draft can be moved forward. 
> 
> Yours,
> 
> Daniel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Mouse
> Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2016 1:59 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Reference for UTF8 in SSH UTF8 terminal mode
> 
>> We are looking at which reference to UTF8 we should mention into the 
>> SSH UTF8 terminal mode.
> 
>> [some Web URL] mentions that RFC3629 is slightly out of date and that 
>> a reference to ISO/IEC 10646:2014 may also be useful.
> 
>> Is anyone aware of any deficiencies in RFC3629 fixed in ISO/IEC
>> 10646:2014 ?
> 
>> The question is whether we should have one reference or both in the 
>> draft.  Unless RFC 3629 has some deficiencies fixed in ISO/IEC 
>> 10646:2014, I am incline to have only RFC3629. Is that something that 
>> sounds reasonable to everyone ?
> 
> My opinion - probably worth about what you paid for it - is that the RFC is a much better reference.  This is for entirely non-technical reasons.
> 
> The ISO believes pay-to-play is reasonable for standards, and, while
> 10646:2014 seems to be one they make an exception for, (a) getting it requires a _lot_ more hoop-jumping than an RFCs, (b) getting it requires agreeing to what for most of the world is foreign legal jurisdiction, (c) they say what you'd get is a "single-user, non-revisable Adobe Acrobat(r) PDF file", which means either it's DRMed or they're stupid enough to think no other PDF-handling software than Adobe's exists (I don't know which; between the jurisdictional issue, the difficulty of jumping through their hoops, and my lack of any real need for it, I haven't fetched it), and (d) their copyright terms are ridiculously onerous for something supposedly "freely available" - for example, you are prohibited from storing it on a filesystem that gets backed up, and you are permitted only one printed copy.
> 
>> This Communication is Confidential.
> 
> Then you might want to avoid sending it to a public, publicly archived, mailing list.
> 
> /~\ The ASCII				  Mouse
> \ / Ribbon Campaign
> X  Against HTML		[e-mail]
> / \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B

-- 
Ron Frederick
[e-mail]