--On onsdag, desember 28, 2005 10:09:05 +0100 "Tom.Petch"
<sisyphus(_at_)dial(_dot_)pipex(_dot_)com> wrote:
The Unicode data I am thinking of may have come from an upper layer
protocol and needs to be passed transparently (as with an error or hello
message, identity even); it may or may not already be NUL-terminated
(ever had that security foul-up where some userid/password are
entered/stored NUL-terminated and some are not?) - hence I see the need
to terminate the string in some other way, or to escape or in some other
way transfer encode (parts of) the string. I looked at existing RFC,
found many different approaches, all viable but none that really said to
me 'this is good engineering, this is best practice'. Hence, floating
the issue to see if there were any better ones out there. I think not,
which is of itself worth knowing.
could you give a little more detail, such as WG name, draft name and so on?
There are many strong opinions around "proper" treatment of XML and of
text, and it would be a shame to ask for advice now, reach a seemingly
reasonable conclusion, and then encounter violent objections at IETF Last
Call.
(the WG that went for illegal syntax as "terminator" SHOULD have caused
such a reaction, IMHO; I guess the people who care missed it....)
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf