Re: Internationalization

I agree with you that NULL terminated ASCII is problematic for a number
of reasons where internationalization is one. Security is potentially
another.

Your proposal seems reasonable to me, but I also can't say whether this
is sufficient.

Regards,
Ellen 

-----Original Message-----
From: Forwarding and Control Element Separation
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 11:41 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Internationalization

The Forces LFB definition allows LFBs to include strings.  That seems 
pretty useful.
However, that seems to raise the i18n question.  We probably need to 
say something about this.
For the properties section, I am declaring that the string length is in
octets.

Currently, the actual definition says that strings are null terminated
ASCII.
That is liable to get us in trouble.
But allowing multi-byte characters, and other things, is going to get 
us into termination problems.

Now, string are always shipped with lengths.  So we could get rid of 
the null termination.
And we could define them to be UTF-8, and declare that the length is 
the maximum number of octets, not the maximum number of characters.

I don't know if that is sufficient.  But it would probably help.

Feedback ASAP.  This will affect progression of the document.  There 
are folks out there who watch very carefully for this sort of issue.

Yours,
Joel