Re: UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2

Kurt Zeilenga wrote:
> 
>> If others have similar or overlapping
>> requirements it would be better for us to use the same specification even
>> if it never becomes a proposed standard RFC.
> 
> I wouldn't object to experimenting here, just so long as it not confused 
> with standard LDIF.
> 
> But if one is going to try to solve a particular problem within the 
> standard community, they should try to solve it generally.  That is, we 
> should dismiss solutions which only work well for limited subsets of 
> Unicode.
> 
>>
>> Would you feel better if we called it the LDAP Data Composition 
>> Format(LDCF)
>> instead of LDIFv2 or Extended LDIF ?
> 
> Well, if one was to have an experiment to develop a LDAP data format, 
> which the whole content is say Net-Unicode, calling it something other 
> than LDIF would be good to avoid confusing it with LDIF.  Things to 
> tackle would include
> 
> - how to represent text values needing to be in different Unicode 
> normalization (in the directory) than the required normalization,
> - how to represent non-text Unicode values (arbitrary sequences of 
> Unicode points),
> - if Net-Unicode line separators are to be considered part of the value, 
> how to represent values requiring other line separators, and
> - bidirectional values.
> 
> Note: not requiring a particular normalization in the file is not a 
> solution to first item, as that merely leaves it up to tools as to which 
> normalization (if any) to apply.  So the first item just becomes, how to 
> convey the normalization algorithm required for the value when 
> represented in the LDAP request.
> 
> These are not simple problems and are unlikely to be solved well on the 
> first publication, hence experimental track does seem appropriate for 
> this feature.
> 
> I would like LDIF standard extensions work to be limited to improving 
> data interchange capabilities (such as representation of LDAP 
> responses), which is a much more straight forward problem, something we 
> are far more likely to get right on the first publication.

Just when I was about to give up.... Anyway, if we go ahead with this, I am 
assuming we need to move the discussion to a different mailing list ?

Should it be an ietf mailing list, or should it happen somewhere else and 
come back here when it starts to take form ?

-- 
Yves.
http://www.sollers.ca/