Subject: Re: RFC: UTF-8 iCalendar bug solution

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 18:12:26 -0500

Hi Mark.  Here's the process when there is an issue.  If someone feels
there is one, they articulate that on the list - hopefully in a small note
(i.e. without all the appends, dialog, etc.).  Ask the question to the list
- what does this list think.  Then, it is up to the chairs to see if there
is 'rough concensus'.  If there is, then we go back to the authors of the
RFC's to get the items changed, and the RFC gets resubmitted and needs to
go through last call, etc.  Does that make sense.  To the rest of the list,
it helps if people speak up so we, the chairs, can get a feel for
concensus.  Note - one person making a statement or opinion IS NOT
consensus.
___________________
Patricia Egen Consulting
www.egenconsulting.com
423-875-2652

                      Mark Swanson                                                                                                         
                      <mark@WebServiceSolut        To:       <[email-masked]>                                                       
                      ions.com>                    cc:                                                                                     
                      Sent by:                     Subject:  Re: RFC: UTF-8 iCalendar bug solution                                         
                      owner-ietf-calendar@m                                                                                                
                      ail.imc.org                                                                                                          

                      02/24/03 05:14 PM                                                                                                    

On February 24, 2003 04:47 pm, Chris Olds wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 16:11:22 -0500, Mark Swanson wrote
> >
> > If we do not allow 0xFC we will not allow a very large mapping of
> > UCS-4 characters from 0400 0000-7FFF FFFF.
>
> This is true, but not (currently) that big a deal.  Most importantly,
> Unicode 3.1 (the current version) doesn't define any characters from
> 0x20000 up (the jargon is that only the BMP (Basic Multilingual Plane)
and
> the 1st Astral Plane (0x10000-0x1FFFF) are defined).  For these planes, a
> lead byte of 11110xxx (0xF0-0xF7) is (more than) enough (in fact, it will
> encode 21 bits of data, covering the BMP and the first 31 astral planes).

> Since a lead byte of 0xF8 (111110 00) allows 24 bits worth of characters
to
> be encoded, I cannot imagine a need for greater range anytime soon.

It seems we have a minor issue and I'd like to know how to proceed.
We could change the spec and forget about this forever, or leave it as is
and
forget about it without harm for some period of time. What is the process
for
voting on something like this?

How would we take an issue (even a minor one like this) and its solution
and
see it through to making it part of the RFC?

Thanks.

--
Schedule your world with ScheduleWorld.com
http://www.ScheduleWorld.com/
Java Web Start:
http://www.ScheduleWorld.com/sw/ScheduleWorld.jnlp

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 16:40:30 -0700

When the WG feels that it is a bug or typo in an RFC and
prior to issuing a new RFC - could we list them on calsch.org ?

Perhaps an errata link for 244[567] + guide ?

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> Hi Mark.  Here's the process when there is an issue.  ...
> ___________________
> Patricia Egen Consulting
> www.egenconsulting.com
> 423-875-2652
>
-- 

  Doug Royer                     |   http://INET-Consulting.com
  -------------------------------|-----------------------------
  [email-masked]                 | Office: (208)612-INET
  http://Royer.com/People/Doug   |    Fax: (866)594-8574
                                 |   Cell: (208)520-4044

                 We Do Standards - You Need Standards

---

From: Mark Swanson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 19:37:15 -0500

> Perhaps an errata link for 244[567] + guide ?

In order to help build consensus on this issue I aggree!

- --