From: Mark Davis (mark.edward.davis@gmail.com)
Date: Fri Apr 17 2009 - 19:21:25 CDT
That document originated in, as I recall, a personal contribution with an
eye to IETF protocols. It doesn't particularly reflect established usage,
nor does it go into particular depth or breadth. It's worth looking at, but
I wouldn't take it as definitive.
Mark
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 16:12, Doug Ewell <doug@ewellic.org> wrote:
> James Cloos <cloos at jhcloos dot com> wrote:
>
> Sam> people seemed to prefer the familiarity of the Python style
>> Sam> (i.e. \u and \U).
>>
>> Since you had mentioned python in the original post, I took a look at
>> their docs. In python, using \uXXXX\uXXXX for surogates is explicitly
>> supported.
>>
>> That said, I also prefer the perl style \x{X...} escape. With that,
>> one can still use \xXX for an octet, or with braces for a UCS char.
>>
>
> If this is going to morph into a thread about what escape styles people
> *like* rather than how they are defined, it might be worth looking at RFC
> 5137 (BCP 137), "ASCII Escaping of Unicode Characters":
>
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5137.txt
>
> This document examines many different styles and their advantages and
> disadvantages, and loosely categorizes them into "recommended" and "normally
> not recommended" camps. This might provide more insight into the problem
> and solutions than having lots of people chip in with their favorite syntax.
>
>
> --
> Doug Ewell * Thornton, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14
> http://www.ewellic.org
> http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages ˆ
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 17 2009 - 19:22:53 CDT