[rfc-i] How lack of Unicode support in IDs is detrimental to design
dhc at dcrocker.net
Fri Jul 27 14:34:57 PDT 2012
> But Phill was talking about a case where he is planning to put UTF-8
> _in the protocol_, and make that UTF-8 significant in the protocol;
> and he was quite correctly pointing out that providing zero examples
> to show how this could happen is an excellent way to ensure that some
> underpaid contract programmer with half an attention span will
> implement the protocol in the future without handling the UTF-8
> encoded protocol fields, and then there'll be an interoperability
> problem. I agree with him.
We've been using the current document format (with ASCII-only
limitations) to specify binary-based protocols for more than 40 years.
They've included examples. Somehow, folks have managed to write them
and other folk have managed to understand them well enough to achieve
I am not understanding what it is that makes UTF-8 more special than IP
or TCP binary headers, or ASN.1 encodings or...
It's not that UTF-8 support in RFCs is a bad idea, it's that claiming
that its absence is a serious problem is.
More information about the rfc-interest