--On Friday, 31 August, 2007 01:00 +0200 Harald Alvestrand
<harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 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, Ben has pointed out one important use for something like
1345, which involves references to characters in programming
languages and command interfaces. The Unicode names are bad
news for that, I certainly don't want
characterNamed(SLOBBOVIAN LOWER CASE COMBINATION
LEFT-HANDED SPANNER)
in those contexts, and that is what Unicode would give me. Our
current solution to that problem seems to be U+[N[N]]NNNN, which
is pretty unattractive (except when compared to all of the other
alternatives). On the other hand, one could argue that 1345
inadvertently proves that no shorter set of mnemonics is going
to work across all of Unicode without becoming pretty arbitrary
and discriminatory against scripts not familiar to the creator
as well as difficult to extend.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf