On 3/5/12 9:34 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: Replying to myself on the topics Andrew and Joe didn't mention...
> 6. FreeClass > > The framework document mentions two possible uses of the FreeClass: > passphrases and nicknames. However, one could argue that passphrases > could be handled by the replacement for SASLprep (Alexey and I will > publish version 00 of that I-D today) and one could also argue that > nicknames could be handled by a separate PRECIS profile (see recent > discussion in the SIMPLE WG). This makes me wonder if we really need to > define the FreeClass in the framework document (which then makes me > wonder if we might want to define the NameClass in a separate document, > leaving the framework as truly just the framework itself -- however I do > think it's helpful to define one string class up front so that we can > show folks how it's done). Now that I think about it some more, I think we do need FreeClass, which other specs will then profile. See for instance Section 3 of draft-melnikov-precis-saslprepbis and draft-saintandre-precis-nickname. > 7. normalization > > The problem statement document notes that NFKC might still be > appropriate for some kinds of strings (e.g., because it handles the > width issue for full-width and half-width code points), but we seem to > have assumed that NFC is the right choice unless proved otherwise. > Perhaps we need to provide stronger guidelines here. Looking at the framework document again, I'm reminded that we prefer NFC because that's what RFC 5198 recommends. However, there still might be profiles that would prefer NFKC -- e.g., that's what I did in the 00 version of draft-saintandre-precis-nickname because it seemed appropriate there to reduce the possibility of confusion. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ _______________________________________________ precis mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis
