[Ietf-calsify] Issue 1: new proposed text
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
>> 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
More information about the Ietf-calsify