[Ietf-calsify] Issue 1: new proposed text

Eliot Lear lear at cisco.com
Fri Sep 22 04:45:29 PDT 2006


Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> Mark Crispin wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 21 Sep 2006, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>>
>>>>>    2. Add a sentence as follows: "It is possible for very simple
>>>>>       implementations to have improperly folded lines in the
>>>>> middle of
>>>>>       UTF-8 characters.  In such cases, implementations SHOULD unfold
>>>>>       lines in such a way to properly restore the character.
>>>>
>>>> I would make that a "Note", I would replace "UTF-8 characters" by
>>>> "character" and I would lowercase the SHOULD.
>>>
>> Suggest "a UTF-8 multi-octet sequence" to make it perfectly clear
>> what we are talking about.  Other charsets have multi-octet sequences
>> too, but we've deprecated the use of these.
>>
>> Suggest using "need to" instead of "should", to indicate that this is
>> a corrolary technical requirement as opposed to something
>> specifically required by the protocol.
>>
>>>> That is:
>>>> >    Note: It is possible for very simple implementations to have
>>>> >    improperly folded lines in the middle of a character. In such
>>>> >    cases, implementations should unfold lines in such a way to
>>>> >    properly restore the character.
>>>
>>> I would also delete "In such cases". A receiving client has no other
>>> choice.
>>
>> Another good point.
>>
>> In conclusion, suggest:
>>
>>     Note: It is possible for very simple implementations to generate
>>     improperly folded lines in the middle of a UTF-8 multi-octet
>>     sequence. For this reason, implementations need to unfold lines
>>     in such a way to properly restore the unbroken sequence.
>
> I like that, but "unbroken" reads strangely hear (the sender might
> have broken it).
> Maybe "restore the original sequence"?
>
That sounds like consensus wording to me if ever I heard some.  Can we
move along?

Eliot


More information about the Ietf-calsify mailing list