Re: Internationalization

Joel

It looks reasonable.  I thinks it should be enough.
But at least we can change it first...

Regards,
Xiaoyi

2006/9/29, Deleganes, Ellen M <[email protected]>:
> 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
>