--On 23. desember 2005 14:45 +0100 "Tom.Petch" <sisyphus(_at_)dial(_dot_)pipex(_dot_)com>
wrote:
For SASLPREP / NAMEPREP you would take Unicode version 3.2,
and for a beta test of Unicode 5.0 take the beta data.
Bye, Frank
I do not think such a reference is stable enough. The earlier references
in RFC to Unicode cited the books published by Addison-Wesley; now the
later ones mostly cite ISO 10646. I am looking for a readily (cheaply)
available list of Unicode character names and code points, as in RFC1345.
Cheap, stable, available. Pick two.
The Unicode lists are readily available from www.unicode.org.
(Notwithstanding their problems with other stability guarantees, I think
they try really hard to not break them more than they feel they have to. I
haven't found a real problem myself with using them for reference yet).
They are also real easy to cut and paste from, being online, and easy to
feed into programs for the same reason.
The ISO 10646 standard is stable, but expensive.
The Unicode books are stable (paper!), and somewhat less expensive. They
also contain a CD-ROM.
Pick your pain.
(BTW, I've heard multiple people claim that RFC 1345 has errors in it. I
haven't verified the claim myself, but I'm pretty sure the Unicode on-line
files are checked by more people than the number of people that checked RFC
1345. RFC 1345 is also quite a bit older than the recent Unicode and ISO
10646 versions.)
Harald
pgpXUutyOShZV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf