Subject: Re: What's left before a new RFC?

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 14:41:17 -0500

From: John Dlugosz

96-character G0 ASCII is a proper subset of UTF-8.
Lots of Internet protocol headers are based on a common design that uses
this small character set.  Is there any reason to break from that, rather
than saying "just like all the others"?
If the reason is to have arbitrary chars in the comment etc., then perhaps
say that it's UTF-8 but the keyword before the ':' must be confined to the
G0 characters, and the linebreak is that of the surrounding document (what
about the Unicode libebreak/parabreak chars?).

Jon Callas <[email-masked]>@mail.imc.org on 04-17-2002 05:54:01 PM

Sent by:  [email-masked]

To:   [email-masked]
cc:
Subject:  What's left before a new RFC?

When I sent out bis04, it had all previous changes and additions in it.

Thomas Roessler is convincing me that I may need to tighten up the language
about UTF-8. If anyone out there disagrees with him, speak up.

I'm willing to put in a note to say that the Version and Comment headers in
armor SHOULD or MUST be ASCII. I don't like it (I want everything to be
UTF-8), but I'll do it. Is UTF-7 too grotesque?

I know of no other desired changes. I would like bis-05 to be Penultimate
Call. Does anyone object?

     Jon

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 14:50:36 -0500

From: John Dlugosz

Ah, excellent point.

So if you wanted to include something funny in the version or comment, you
could use something like HTML escapes.  That would be clear to the human
reader, but still pacify the person who really really wants to spell his
name correctly.

Marc Mutz <[email-masked]>@mail.imc.org on 04-18-2002 05:48:57 AM

To:   Marcel Waldvogel <[email-masked]>, Jon Callas
      <[email-masked]>
cc:   [email-masked]
Subject:  Re: What's left before a new RFC?

On Thursday 18 April 2002 10:17, Marcel Waldvogel wrote:
<snip>
> For the Version and Comment headers, I propose to state that they are
> UTF-8, but for interoperability, implementations SHOULD restrict
> themselves to generate ASCII characters.
<snip>

I don't see the how having UTF-8 inside _ASCII_ Armor can be justified. The
problem is that the ascii armor is going to be used in non-8but-clean
environments. Else, you'd use the binary format, no?

Because of that, I'm strongly in favour of stating that implementations
MUST
NOT emit armor headers with non-US-ACSII characters in them.

Re: UTF-7. I understand that UTF-7 could be a solution. Only UTF-7 is
widely
considered to be a big mistake, so it shouldn't be used anymore.

Marc

- --
Marc Mutz <[email-masked]>