On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 21:15:40 +0200 Peter Rosin <p...@lysator.liu.se> wrote:
> Den 2009-06-25 16:26 skrev Pierre Ossman: > > Incompatible is a term that will have to be used loosly here. There is > > no compatibility here today as everyone is doing different things, so I > > don't see this move making things any worse. > > I never answered this, so here I go. I'd be happier if it was > formulated more like a recommendation (a strong one if you > like) to use UTF-8 whereever the encoding was unclear. As the > patch is written it seems like an error to not use UTF-8. > > In particular this snippet is bad: "Clients and servers must > send UTF-8 strings". "Must" is just way too strong. > I originally wrote "should" there, but that gives the impression that things work fairly fine even without following this behaviour, which it doesn't. It's a rather odd situation we're in. Not having a defined encoding makes the strings nearly useless, which warrants a "must". But OTOH, that's how it is today and therefore a "should" would normally be appropriate. IMO it's better to have a strong "must" as all strings really need to have a defined encoding, but keep the historical note to warn against the horrible situation we're in with the current implementations. > I also think the second hunk of the patch should be left out > so that the string encoding is left unspecified and thus falls > back to the new "String Encodings" section (which of course > recommends UTF-8). It was for redundancy as I suspect many browse through the initial parts of the spec very quickly. Rgds -- Pierre Ossman OpenSource-based Thin Client Technology System Developer Telephone: +46-13-21 46 00 Cendio AB Web: http://www.cendio.com
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ tigervnc-rfbproto mailing list tigervnc-rfbproto@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tigervnc-rfbproto
