Re: support for non-ASCII in strings, was: signatures vs sf-date

> On Dec 2, 2022, at 11:18 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp <> wrote:
> --------
> Roy T. Fielding writes:
>> FWIW, there is nothing technical preventing a requirement that sf fields
>> support UTF-8 by default.
> (... provided they are somehow escaped into USASCII visibility.)

No, I meant UTF-8, as in coded 8-bit unicode. They don't interfere with parsing
when inside a not-yet-standard field-value, whether or not it is a structured field.
They are, of course, not allowed in current sf field values, but I am not aware of
any implementations that invoke an sf parser on unknown fields.


Received on Friday, 2 December 2022 19:43:56 UTC