Subject: [EAI] Re: #1518 Normalization - a proposal for resolution

From: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 16:16:27 +0100

Harald Alvestrand wrote:

> Does that seem appropriate?

Could you somehow smuggle in a note that the set
of allowed UTF-8 characters might be reduced in a
future version ?

E.g. RFC 3987 defines a sound subset, no C1, no
non-characters, no PUA.  We're just not ready to
decide what we want yet, it's only an experiment.

Maybe allowing PUA is perfect for folks wishing
to use "apples" in their local parts, and maybe
allowing Unicode new line characters or similar
cases turn out to cause havoc.

 Frank

_______________________________________________
IMA mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 14:11:08 +0100

> of allowed UTF-8 characters might be reduced in a

wouldn't dream of SMUGGLING it in :-)

> cases turn out to cause havoc.

hm - that subset makes some sense to me. It's hard to argue for C1, 
half-surrogates or PUA, or that running the experiment with this 
restriction will make it impossible to change our minds later. Other 
opinions?

BTW - this ticket shows the dangers of having stayed with a document for a 
long time; it turns out that almost exactly the same text was in section 5 
already:

   This document does not specify any requirement for normalization.
   Prudent use of UTF-8 in identifiers will involve sharply restricted
   forms, for instance case-folded NFKC, but this document does not
   require such a form anywhere in the protocol.

and another forgotten "note in draft".
Should this be moved to section 4?

                 Harald