On Thu, Apr 5, 2007, Ned Freed <ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com> said:
"${unicode:200000}" -> error
"${unicode:2000000}" -> "${unicode:2000000}"
Ugh, if it looks like encoded-char and walks like encoded-char...
My test implementation left-shifts the current value of the encoded
character, then adds the next hex digit. When it hits whitespace, it
checks if the value is within appropriate bounds; if so, stores the
character then loops, if not, stores '?' then loops. Would we really
rather be very strict about this? I'm in favor of some flexibility.
You need to strictly implement the grammar in the specificaiton, whatever
that ends up being. Any flexibility will allow someone to write one of
these things that works in your implementation but silently fails and causes
wierd results elsewhere.
Past experience with RFC 2047 encoded-words has shown that allowing leeway in
this situations is a curse, not a blessing.
Indeed, point taken!
Aaron