On 10/11/2020 8:49 PM, Ricardo Signes wrote:
On Sun, Oct 11, 2020, at 10:44 PM, John Levine wrote:
If they haven't already figured out that it's a fool's errand to
validate Unicode beyond broad rules like don't allow surrogates in
UTF-8, they're not going to figure it out for this tiny hack.
I believe this says "It is not worth including that."
This thread seems to be about a concern that an implementor will not
know how to properly deal with Unicode. No doubt that's a valid issue,
but this specification isn't the place to fix this. Unicode is a
discrete (and complex) topic.
Basic tutorials or cautions about it don't belong in a specification
like this.
If there is a statement to include, it should be a very general,
non-normative pointer to background information about Unicode or Unicode
technical issues.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
ietf-822 mailing list
ietf-822(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-822