Subject: Re: [Ltru] Issue #38 (AD comment #5) ABNF vs UTF-8

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 13:52:34 -0600

Randy Presuhn <randy underscore presuhn at mindspring dot com> wrote:

> Our intention in the ABNF was *NOT* to describe the registry as a 
> byte-stream, but rather to describe it as a character stream.  I view 
> the encoding of the registry as UTF-8 (rather than UTF-16 or UTF-32 or 
> EBCDIC :-) as a separate matter from the ABNF, and think that trying 
> to accomplish both in the ABNF would only serve to confuse rather than 
> enlighten.

I agree completely.  The main aspect of this revision as it pertains to 
representation of the Registry is that characters beyond U+007F will no 
longer be represented by hex references like &#xC1; but as themselves. 
The UTF-8 encoding of these characters is a separate matter from the 
grammar.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Thornton, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://www.ewellic.org
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  ˆ