Re: RFC 1345 mnemonics table not consistent with Unicode 3.2.0

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Lisa Dusseault wrote:


If the IETF were to consider something like RFC1345 today, there would be a lot of questions like - whether a registry would be more appropriate than a static document, after all it's a set of fields that might be extended, - how one would determine whether any two implementations were interoperable, or if that's a sensible concept in this context - whether another standards organization wouldn't be a better place for detailed char set mappings

For all I know those conversations occurred with RFC1345, but we'd still have them again :)
I just feel like being blunt today:

RFC 1345 was a bad idea at the time. It was published without IETF review, and contains errors, both in design and in details, that would have been caught if people who could have done the review had been asked to do so.

RFC 1345 is best ignored. If you want to name characters, use Unicode.

                   Harald

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]