On 2/4/15 11:02 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Tuesday, February 03, 2015 22:40 -0600 Pete Resnick <[email protected]> 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.Pete, It seems to me that "particularly ones whose implications they actually understand" in this newer phrasing essentially encourages people to allow/use characters whose implications they know they don't understand. I don't think we should encourage that. Ever. It may well happen with FreeFormClass, but I still think we shouldn't encourage it.
Ah, so perhaps reversing it, and being more specific, would be better: Even so, implementations that are sensitive to the advice given in this specification (to use the more restrictive IdentifierClass whenever possible, or otherwise to only allow a restricted set of characters in the FreeformClass, particularly avoiding ones whose implications they don't actually understand) are unlikely to run into significant problems as a consequence of these issues or potential changes. Is that clearer for everyone? pr -- Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/> Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
_______________________________________________ precis mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis
