ietf-nntp Commetns on draft-15.pdf

[Stan Barber]

If it is REALLY true that this will not change yet again, I am fine with 
   making the revision in 16. I just don't want to have to revisit this 
yet again.

Charles Lindsey wrote:

> In <20020102113110.H72355 at demon.net> "Clive D.W. Feather" <clive at demon.net> writes:
> 
> 
>> UTF-8-non-ascii = UTF8-2 / UTF8-3 / UTF8-4 / UTF8-5 / UTF8-6 
>> UTF8-1 = %x80-BF
>> UTF8-2 = %xC2-DF UTF8-1 
>> UTF8-3 = %xE0 %xA0-BF  UTF8-1 / %xE1-EF 2UTF8-1
>> UTF8-4 = %xF0 %x90-BF 2UTF8-1 / %xF1-F7 3UTF8-1
>> UTF8-5 = %xF8 %x88-BF 3UTF8-1 / %xF9-FB 4UTF8-1
>> UTF8-6 = %xFC %x84-BF 4UTF8-1 / %xFD 5UTF8-1
>>
> 
>>* You can eliminate "surrogates" by changing one line of that:
>>
> 
>> UTF8-3 = %xE0 %xA0-BF UTF8-1 / %xE1-EC 2UTF8-1 /
>>          %xED %x80-9F UTF8-1 / %xEE-EF 2UTF8-1
>>
> 
> 
>>The choice is ours !
>>
> 
> The main advantage of giving a full syntax, such as the last one, is that
> it strongly suggests how to construct a filter that will detect
> non-correct usage of UTF-8 in injecting and reading agents (for example,
> if someone tries to use 8859-1 in headers).
> 
> That is indeed more of an issue for USEFOR, which is why we went to the
> trouble of doing it there (and we learned quite a lot about UTF-8 in the
> process, which was a Good Thing).
> 
> However, now that the work has been done, it would make some sense to use
> it again in the NNTP draft. Even though it matters less here, I think
> people are going to notice the difference between the two documents and
> try to read some sinister meaning into it, where none was intended.
> 
> However, I might be persuaded that eliminating the surrogates was a bridge
> too far.
> 
>