From owner-spki@c2.net Tue Mar 16 19:02:32 1999 Received: from blacklodge.c2.net (blacklodge.c2.net [140.174.185.245]) by lox.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA09966; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 19:02:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by blacklodge.c2.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id PAA26497 for spki-outgoing; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 15:24:51 -0800 (PST) To: Paul Koning Cc: spki@c2.net Subject: Re: Display types? References: <199903151518.KAA16272@swan.lcs.mit.edu> <87g17636x5.fsf@hedonism.demon.co.uk> <3.0.3.32.19990316075757.0373da18@spiritone.com> <199903161853.NAA04997@tonga.xedia.com> <199903162250.RAA10841@tonga.xedia.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: nisse@lysator.liu.se (Niels =?ISO-8859-1?Q?M=F6ller?=) Date: 17 Mar 1999 00:24:36 +0100 In-Reply-To: Paul Koning's message of "Tue, 16 Mar 1999 17:50:40 -0500" Message-ID: Lines: 20 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.59/Emacs 19.34 Sender: owner-spki@c2.net Precedence: bulk Paul Koning writes: > The UFT-8 and Unicode discussion in the Plan9 document that was quoted > earlier makes the point that Unicode in its 16-bit form has the major > problem that the byte order isn't well defined and cleanly handled. > That does sound familiar, and it's totally unacceptable to introduce > such a thing anywhere. I don't get this. We are free to specify that unicode strings in spki are always in network byte order (or the other way round, I don't care). We only have to spell out the rules clearly. It's been done before and it's no big deal. Avoiding an endianness holy war is yet another *irrelevant* argument for UTF-8. Next I'm expecting that we should use ascii decimal digits for bignums, because binary encoding of integers can be done using several incompatible byte orders, and this confusion is totally unacceptable. *sigh* /Niels