On Dec 23, 2005, at 9:18 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
Nathaniel Borenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Nobody is going to argue against considering really
meaningful improvements to DKIM, even if they introduce
incompatibilities,
Then why the push to have charter language designed to do exactly
> From: "Ned Freed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "TomPetch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: "ietf"
> Sent: Friday, December 23, 2005 7:13 PM
> Subject: Re: Troubles with UTF-8
>
> > > (Unicode
> > > lacks a no-op, a meaningless octet, one that could be added or removed
> without
> > > causing any change
I agree with everything Ned said, this is a non-problem.
On Dec 23, 2005, at 10:13 AM, Ned Freed wrote:
(Unicode
lacks a no-op, a meaningless octet, one that could be added or
removed without
causing any change to the meaning of the text).
NBSP is used for this purpose.
I think actually
On Fri, 2005-12-23 at 17:27 -0500, Nathaniel Borenstein wrote:
>
> Far from trying to "leave only one authorization method," the DKIM
> effort is an attempt to show, by example, how an arbitrary number of
> such methods might eventually be elaborated and standardized.
There is danger viewing
From: "Ned Freed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "TomPetch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "ietf"
Sent: Friday, December 23, 2005 7:13 PM
Subject: Re: Troubles with UTF-8
> > (Unicode
> > lacks a no-op, a meaningless octet, one that could be added or removed
without
> > causing any change to the meaning of th
Dave
Is this an ok use of RFC4234? Reading it, I am not clear whether U+FEFF should
be
specified as %xFE %xFF or whether %xFFEF is ok? And what is the ABNF for any
possible ISO 10646 character, all 97000 of them?
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: "Ned Freed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Dear Ned,
I do not want to restart an issue on this. I thank you for your
answer. I think I could support most of what you say but
throughout different layers. The real issue appears to me a layer
confusion. You describe it well when you oppose charsets and Unicode.
Due to historical reas
