* Pete Resnick wrote: >Your suggestion I think is making too strong a claim, but I see where >you're going. You needn't limit to a single script or otherwise heavily >restrict to stay clear of potential problems; you simply have to stick >to the more restrictive classes provided, or if you need to use >free-form, then restrict to something more limited. So perhaps this >would be clearer, and capture your concern: > > Even so, implementations that are sensitive to the advice given in > this specification (to use the more restrictive String Classes, or > otherwise to only allow a restricted set of characters, particularly > ones whose implications they actually understand) are unlikely to > run into significant problems as a consequence of these issues or > potential changes.
This is better, but if I and my implementation do run into significant problems because I did not disallow some characters that I could have disallowed, do you really think that I am to blame? I18N folks tell me to have as few restrictions on characters as possible, while the text above suggests to have as many restrictions as possible. If I fail to find the proper balance myself, in the void that is left by the draft, I think the specification is also responsible. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[email protected] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de D-10243 Berlin · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de Available for hire in Berlin (early 2015) · http://www.websitedev.de/ _______________________________________________ precis mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis
