You're probably right. I was not referring to over-the-wire encoding, just the preparation, enforcement, and comparison algorithms themselves.
The use-case I have in mind is just to give users some immediate feedback about invalid characters in the browser, before any over-the-wire transmission takes place. On 5 September 2016 at 10:34, Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]> wrote: > On 9/4/16 5:30 PM, Erin Millard wrote: > >> >>> * ยง2.2 Specifies that UTF-8 MUST be used as the encoding; do we >> really >> >>> want to limit this to UTF-8 only? Is this for comparison purposes? >> >>> Then again, 99.99% of the time UTF-8 is what you should be using >> >>> anyways, so I'm not sure that it matters. >> >> >> >> UTF-8 is your friend, and everything in PRECIS is UTF-8. >> > >> > PRECIS is mostly encoding agnostic; implementations might favor a >> > specific encoding, but I don't think anything in the spec >> specifically >> > *needs* UTF-8. That being said, there are so few reasons to use >> > anything other than UTF-8 that I don't think it really matters, it >> was >> > just curious to me that some of the PRECIS related specs called out >> > UTF-8 and some didn't. >> >> I thought they all did, but will double-check. >> >> >> This actually became a bigger issue when attempting to implement PRECIS >> prepare in JavaScript for the browser. JavaScript doesn't have native >> UTF-8 support, so this meant the extra bloat of bringing in a UTF-8 >> library. >> >> It didn't make a lot of sense to me either, since all the encoding >> affects is how you go from string to code points, and vice versa. It had >> no effect on the rest of my implementation. I could absolutely be >> missing something, but compared to how focused the rest of the spec is, >> the UTF-8 requirement seemed like an afterthought. >> >> Can anyone explain which parts of PRECIS are actually predicated on the >> original string being encoded in UTF-8? >> > > Are we perhaps getting confused between the encoding that is sent over the > wire and the encoding that is used within the processing application? > > In general, we in the IETF prefer to send UTF-8 over the wire. However, > it's true that this is a matter for the "using protocol" (e.g., I > distinctly recall an extremely long thread in the XMPP WG years ago about > whether to support only UTF-8 or to give clients and servers the ability to > also use UTF-16 - and "UTF-8 only" won that debate). Given that some > protocols or other technologies that use PRECIS might use UTF-16 or give > applications the ability to choose an encoding, you're probably right that > it makes sense to relax the rule for PRECIS itself. > > I'll think about this some more and propose some text. > > Peter > >
_______________________________________________ precis mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis
