I'm more comfortable with this model than with adding more steps.
On 4/19/17 3:37 PM, William Fisher wrote:
> An alternative is to treat finalization as an application/protocol
> responsibility. RFC 7564 section 6.2. "Further Excluded Characters"
> can be interpreted as allowing a protocol to
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 8:30 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Thinking about this further, I now lean against making this change in
> the PRECIS processing rules, for several reasons:
Sorry for dragging this back up again, but I ran into this for the
first time "in the real
On 3/23/17 1:46 PM, William Fisher wrote:
> I agree with the "implementation note" strategy. In all my testing,
> only the "Nickname" profile can fail to be idempotent for some inputs.
> I have not found any inputs that fail the idempotent test using the
> Username or OpaqueString profiles. I
I agree with the "implementation note" strategy. In all my testing,
only the "Nickname" profile can fail to be idempotent for some inputs.
I have not found any inputs that fail the idempotent test using the
Username or OpaqueString profiles. I believe "Nickname" has problems
because it uses NFKC.
On 2/26/17 5:48 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 2/13/17 12:04 AM, William Fisher wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Peter Saint-Andre
>> wrote:
>>> Did you mean U+212A (KELVIN SIGN)? That decomposes to U+004B (LATIN CAPITAL
>>> LETTER K).
>>>
The full example
Hi Bill, thanks for your message and sorry about the seriously delayed
reply - I've been working to finish some other Internet-Drafts and now
have time again to finish the PRECIS updates.
On 10/13/16 1:33 PM, William Fisher wrote:
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 9:03 PM, Peter Saint-Andre
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 9:03 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> It's not clear to me that U+1F11 has the problem you describe; perhaps could
> you sketch it out further?
Oops, that should be U+0001F11A. The full example is:
"\U0001f11aevin" => "(K)evin" => "(k)evin"
I wrote a
On 10/12/16 1:56 PM, William Fisher wrote:
Should enforcing a string using PRECIS be idempotent?
As far as I know, that was not a design criterion for PRECIS. Naturally,
it might be a desirable property nonetheless.
If I apply the
enforce operation to a string twice, should I get the same
Should enforcing a string using PRECIS be idempotent? If I apply the
enforce operation to a string twice, should I get the same result as
applying it just once?
The nickname profile is NOT idempotent for some inputs.
1. Certain characters are NFKC normalized to sequences with ASCII spaces.
This