You say that a Unicode code point can be represented by %xABCD but that is not
spelt out in ABNF [RFC4234]. And when it refers to 'one printable character' as
'%x20-7E' I get the impressions that coded character sets like Unicode, with
more than 256 code points, do not fall within its remit. I have yet to see any
use of this in an I-D or RFC. I did post a question about this to this list on
24th December and the lack of response reinforces my view that this is uncharted
territory.
Tom Petch
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Seng" <james(_at_)seng(_dot_)sg>
To: "Tom.Petch" <sisyphus(_at_)dial(_dot_)pipex(_dot_)com>
Cc: "ietf" <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 6:50 AM
Subject: Re: Troubles with UTF-8
On 12/23/05, Tom.Petch <sisyphus(_at_)dial(_dot_)pipex(_dot_)com> wrote:
A) Character set. UTF-8 implicitly specifies the use of Unicode/IS10646
which
contains 97,000 - and rising - characters. Some (proposed) standards
limit
themselves to 0000..007F, which is not at all international, others to
0000-00FF, essentially Latin-1, which suits many Western languages but is
not
truly international. Is 97,000 really appropriate or should there be a
defined
subset?
Why should there be a subset? You really really dont want to go into a
debate of which script is more important then the other.
B) Code point. Many standards are defined in ABNF [RFC4234] which allows
code
points to be specified as, eg, %b00010011 %d13 or %x0D none of which are
terribly Unicode-like (U+000D). The result is standards that use one
notation
in the ABNF and a different one in the body of the document; should ABNF
allow
something closer to Unicode (as XML has done with �D;)?
Following RFC4234, Unicode code point U+ABCD will just be represented as
%xABCD.
I do not see the problem you mention or am I missing something?
<snip>
http://www.unicode.org/charts/
-James Seng
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf