From: Hollenbeck, Scott <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, May 21, 2025 at 3:24 PM To: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: [regext] Re: unicode assignables and RDAP extensions > -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew (andy) Newton <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2025 3:21 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] unicode assignables and RDAP extensions > > Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click > links > or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is > safe. > > Hi, > > draft-bray-unichars [1], which is currently in IESG evaluation, describes > Unicode subsets and the problems with just allowing anything Unicode in a > text protocol. > > This doc describes "unicode assignables" as the "subset as all the Unicode > code > points that are not problematic." > > I think it would be a good idea for the RDAP extensions draft to also limit > RDAP > extension identifiers, object class names, and JSON property names to the > "unicode assignables" subset. > > What do people think?
[SAH] Good idea! [JS] +1 Since that draft suggests “restricting the contents of object member names and string values to one of the subsets”, beside naming, should we also limit string values in the JSON responses for an RDAP extension? Jasdip
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
