On Fri, 05 Nov 1999 19:22:12 GMT, Dr Stephen Henson wrote:
> Chris Ridd wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 05 Nov 1999 13:06:42 GMT, Dr Stephen Henson wrote:
> > > Chris Ridd wrote:
> > Treating it as 8859-1 is just plain wrong, and would penalise vendors
> > who bothered implementing the standards correctly (such as ourselves,
> > as it happens.)
> >
>
> Which specific standards are you following?
LDAPv2, LDAPv3, X.500 (1988, 1993, 1997 draft), ASN.1, BER (both 1988 I
think). We even have the CCITT blue book here with T.61 in :-)
I read Peter Guttmann's screed on X.509 and char sets last night -
interesting, though he does fall into the trap of discussing all the
myriad of drafts, and forgetting that these are just drafts. The
standards themselves are less ambiguous.
> > > [Anyone know if Netscape/MSIE handles shifts and escaping with T61 BTW?]
> >
> > I think they treat it as 8859-1.
> >
>
> That's what I thought. This causes the problem that just fixing things
> by doing it "right": it will cause incompatability with NS/MSIE and
> previous versions of OpenSSL/SSLeay.
That would definitely be a Bad Thing. I think it makes it impossible to
move to using RFC 2253, as this requires knowledge of the original
character sets.
Cheers,
Chris
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
