I suggest including wording to the effect "if no SD-ID encoding element is specified, then the encoding of the content is implementation specific and it is RECOMMENDED that no assumption be made about the encoding of the content."
dbh > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rainer Gerhards > Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 6:24 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Chris Lonvick > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [Syslog] #5 - character encoding (was: Consensus?) > > Andrew, > > > >Hi Rainer, > > > > > >Why don't we look at it from the other direction? We could > > state that any > > >encoding is acceptable - for ease-of-use/migration with > > existing syslog > > >implementations. It is RECOMMENDED that UTF-8 be used. > When it is > > >used, an SD-ID element will be REQUIRED. e.g. - > > [enc="utf-8" lang="en"] > > > > I like that idea too. > > > > So, if no SD-ID encoding element is specified, then we must > > assume US-ASCII > > and deal with it accordingly?? > > I think not. If it is not present, we known that we do not know it. If > it is US-ASCII, I would expect something like > > [enc="us-ascii" lang="en"] > > Of course, we could also say if it is non-present, we can assume > US-ASCII. But then we would need to introduce > > [enc="unknown"] > > for the (common) case where we simply do not know it (again: think > POSIX). I find this somehwat confusing. > > Rainer > > _______________________________________________ > Syslog mailing list > Syslog@lists.ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog > _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
