On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 06:28:42PM -0600, Philip Guenther wrote:
As for the name of the extension, I think it should be "encoded-character"
instead of "quoted-character": this is not a quoting scheme but rather an
encoding scheme.
Or possibly "encoded-octet"?
Regarding the description of the language in section 2.1, how does the
following addition (based on text from Alexey) look:
While this specification permits arbitrary octets to appear in
sieve scripts inside strings and comments, this has made it
difficult to robustly handle sieve scripts in user interfaces.
The "encoded-character" capability (section 2.4.2.4) provides an
alternative means of representing such octets in strings using
just US-ASCII characters. As such, the use of non-UTF-8 text in
scripts should be considered a deprecated feature that may be
abandoned.
That would be inserted as the third paragraph in that section and given
additional indentation (ala the behaviors described in section 2.7.2).
To me, it does not point out strong enough that new implementations
shold not allow non-UTF-8 octet sequences AT ALL.
How about:
Sieve scripts SHOULD NOT use non-UTF-8 octet sequences.
If non-UTF-8 octet sequences are required in strings, the
"encoded-octet" capability (section 2.4.2.4) provides an
alternative means of representing such octets in strings using
just US-ASCII characters.
It's not a MUST and backwards compatibility of specific implementations
is certainly a very good reason to act against the SHOULD.
Michael