John C Klensin wrote:
Ned Freed wrote:
[...]
To the extent RFC 1345 is problematic, it is because its domain
of applicability is quite limited. But within that narrow
domain it actually can perform a useful function.
Agreed. And perhaps that suggests a way forward if people are
willing
Hi -
From: Doug Ewell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ietf@ietf.org
Cc: Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 11:33 AM
Subject: Re: RFC 1345 mnemonics table not consistent with Unicode 3.2.0
...
None of those provides a list of short mnemonic
--On Thursday, 30 August, 2007 16:29 -0700 Ned Freed
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Exactly so. To the extent RFC 1345 is problematic, it is
because its domain of applicability is quite limited. But
within that narrow domain it actually can perform a useful
function.
Agreed. And perhaps that
John C Klensin wrote:
--On Friday, 31 August, 2007 01:00 +0200 Harald Alvestrand
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Harald, Ben has pointed out one important use for something like
1345, which involves references to characters in programming
languages and command interfaces. The Unicode names are
Harald, Ben has pointed out one important use for something like
1345, which involves references to characters in programming
languages and command interfaces. The Unicode names are bad
news for that, I certainly don't want
I wouldn't be suprised if that was the case. There
Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Randy Presuhn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(1) What be the point of an update to RFC 1345? A modern developer
should be going directly to the ISO and Unicode documents for
reference.
RFC 1345 gives mnemonic strings for many useful characters, and there
Simon Josefsson simon at josefsson dot org wrote:
Hi Ben. The Unicode Character Database files contains, at least as
far as I understand your request, a list of code points and their
mnemonic strings. The description of the database is available from:
On Aug 25, 2007, at 7:11 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
I'd like to discuss this with the people who made the original RFC
1345 character mnemonic table. How would I get in touch with the
authors of RFC 1345?
It wasn't my intention to write a new discussion draft, but it seems
that since my purpose
Lisa Dusseault wrote:
If the IETF were to consider something like RFC1345 today, there would
be a lot of questions like
- whether a registry would be more appropriate than a static
document, after all it's a set of fields that might be extended,
- how one would determine whether any two
--On Friday, 31 August, 2007 01:00 +0200 Harald Alvestrand
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For all I know those conversations occurred with RFC1345, but
we'd still have them again :)
I just feel like being blunt today:
RFC 1345 was a bad idea at the time. It was published without
IETF review,
--On Friday, 31 August, 2007 01:00 +0200 Harald Alvestrand
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For all I know those conversations occurred with RFC1345, but
we'd still have them again :)
I just feel like being blunt today:
RFC 1345 was a bad idea at the time. It was published without
IETF
The biggest problem I see with RFC 1345, other than its somewhat
ambiguous and uncertain applicability, is that IETF doesn't seem
well-positioned to maintain it. There aren't many people who
participate in IETF who have the kind of expertise needed to do a
competent job of revising it. And I
[People, again, please don't send me copies of messages to the list.]
Lisa Dusseault [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For the guidelines on doing a new draft, please read http://
www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.html.
Another place you might start discussion of similar work is on the
Apps Discuss
The biggest problem I see with RFC 1345, other than its somewhat
ambiguous and uncertain applicability, is that IETF doesn't seem
well-positioned to maintain it.
That argument would probably hold if we were attempting to build this from
scratch or trying to build something that covers more
]
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 6:59 PM
Subject: Re: RFC 1345 mnemonics table not consistent with Unicode 3.2.0
...
In any case, I have always stated that I for one would be more than willing to
work on this (and I happen to have considerable expertise in this area) were
I'm a bit unclear on what these resources are in this volunteer organization
that we have that can be focused on tasks as needed. But hey, if we have them,
then I'm all for using them on the really critical stuff.
well, I _wish_ we could focus resources on some critical areas. it
doesn't seem
Randy Presuhn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ben Finney wrote:
Randy Presuhn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(1) What be the point of an update to RFC 1345? A modern developer
should be going directly to the ISO and Unicode documents for
reference.
RFC 1345 gives mnemonic strings for
Hi -
From: Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 11:33 PM
Subject: Re: RFC 1345 mnemonics table not consistent with Unicode 3.2.0
...
The issue remains that the informational RFC presents useful mnemonics
for many characters, and there doesn't appear
Randy Presuhn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ben Finney wrote:
The issue remains that the informational RFC presents useful
mnemonics for many characters, and there doesn't appear to be such
a thing from Unicode or ISO. That's the point of an update to RFC
1345: it serves a purpose that I
Ben Finney ben plus ietf at benfinney dot id dot au wrote:
The issue remains that the informational RFC presents useful mnemonics
for many characters, and there doesn't appear to be such a thing from
Unicode or ISO. That's the point of an update to RFC 1345: it serves a
purpose that I can't
[People, please don't send me copies of list messages by mail. I'm
subscribed to the list and read it via a non-mail interface.]
Doug Ewell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ben Finney ben plus ietf at benfinney dot id dot au wrote:
The issue remains that the informational RFC presents useful
Randy Presuhn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(1) What be the point of an update to RFC 1345? A modern developer
should be going directly to the ISO and Unicode documents for
reference.
RFC 1345 gives mnemonic strings for many useful characters, and there
are a number of character input systems
Hi -
From: Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 7:48 PM
Subject: Re: RFC 1345 mnemonics table not consistent with Unicode 3.2.0
Randy Presuhn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(1) What be the point of an update to RFC 1345? A modern developer
should
Howdy all,
In attempting to implement some of the RFC 1345 mnemonic sequences,
I've been trying to match up the information in that document with the
Unicode data for version 3.2.0. Unfortunately, at some point it seems
the two have become inconsistent with each other.
I searched the list
Hi -
From: Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 2:55 PM
Subject: RFC 1345 mnemonics table not consistent with Unicode 3.2.0
...
Thanks for reading this far; I hope this analysis is useful, and look
forward to an update for RFC 1345 that addresses
25 matches
Mail list logo
