[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-822] What about doing more?

2020-10-13 08:34:04
On 10/11/2020 5:49 PM, Valdis Klētnieks wrote:
How about:

     Reference to unallocated code points SHOULD NOT be treated as an
error; the associated bytes SHOULD be presented in numeric form.

or some such?
"associated bytes SHOULD be presented with the system default method
for denoting an unallocated or undisplayable code point"

Yeah.  That works.


Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking

ietf-822 mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>