I agree, it's perfectly clear that these characters are to be escaped. It's just as unclear as to why.
Using Ted's test, the chance of an implementor assuming this is a doc bug is slim.
Jim
>>> "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org> 10/19/04 1:24:16 PM >>> While I think the I-D is quite clear that DQUOTE is to be escaped, if others think that it isn't clear enough, I would favor adding a specific example over adding a historical note to further clarify that DQUOTE is to escaped. Kurt At 12:13 PM 10/19/2004, Ted Hardie wrote: >At 11:23 AM -0700 10/19/04, Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote: >>At 09:53 AM 10/19/2004, Jim Sermersheim wrote: >>>Anyway, I diverge. I agree we can't remove DQUOTE (or even SEMI) as escaped characters in order to support existing clients, but I think some historical note should be added which addresses DQUOTE and SEMI to avoid future head scratching. >> >>Personally, I think adding historical notes, especially on >>such minor points as to why DQUOTE is to be escaped, would >>distract from the technical specification. I would rather >>someone write a "History of LDAP" I-D which detailed how >>LDAP evolved to what it is, and leave this and other LDAPBIS >>I-Ds to detail how LDAP is to be implemented. >> >>Kurt > >Speaking personally, I think the line should get drawn when >there is a risk that a fresh implementor would make the wrong >choice when faced with the uncommented. That is, if there >is a reasonable risk that an implementor will think it is a >doc bug if you don't explain it, you should explain it. Otherwise, >the external draft is a better way to go. > >Just my two cents, > Ted Hardie |