ietf-nntp NNTP base spec comments

[Charles Lindsey]

In <Pine.SOL.3.95.981117142930.28566G-100000 at elwood.innosoft.com> Chris Newman <Chris.Newman at INNOSOFT.COM> writes:

>The syntax for UTF-8-non-ascii is overly permissive.  The following is
>less permissive:
>     UTF-8-non-ascii = UTF8-2 / UTF8-3 / UTF8-4 / UTF8-5 / UTF8-6
>     UTF8-1          = %x80-BF
>     UTF8-2          = %xC0-DF UTF8-1
>     UTF8-3          = %xE0-EF 2UTF8-1
>     UTF8-4          = %xF0-F7 3UTF8-1
>     UTF8-5          = %xF8-FB 4UTF8-1
>     UTF8-6          = %xFC-FD 5UTF8-1

Pedantically yes, but I am sure it would be easier for implementors of
wildmats to use the present definition, which is %xC0-FF 1*(%x80-BF), and
to be able to do so legally.

What is an implementation supposed to do if it meets an "illegal" one?
Issue an error response, or try to match a newsgroup name (whatever) with
the illigal UTF-8 in it (which will fail, presumably).

BTW, has anyone produced a model implementation of wildmats with UTF-8 in
them yet?

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Email:     chl at clw.cs.man.ac.uk  Web:   http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Voice/Fax: +44 161 437 4506      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9     Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7  65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5