Kjetil Torgrim Homme writes:
On Tue, 2008-04-08 at 11:17 -0400, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
Alexey Melnikov <alexey(_dot_)melnikov(_at_)isode(_dot_)com> wrote:
> Is this reasonable? I think we should at least prohibit other ASCII
> control characters.
I think it is reasonable to require the character to be printable.
e.g., we don't want Unicode BOM in there, either.
Agree.
I'm in favour of setting aside one character for hierarchy purposes
though, e.g. "/", even if it has no meaning today.
If / is reserved, then I suggest that U+2044 ⁄ and U+2215 ∕ should be
forbidden. Otherwise one clever client will substitute ⁄ for / when
uploading a script, and wen the types / into another client, that other
client can't download the script.
Yes, I know visual similarity is a big issue. Dealing with all of it is
not worth it. Dealing with just this little bit is, IMO.
Arnt