Re: Reviewed charmod fundamentals

On Mar 8, 2004, at 4:40 AM, Misha Wolf wrote:

> The sentence quoted by Tim says:
>    C016 [S] When designing a new protocol, format or API,
>    specifications SHOULD mandate a unique character encoding.
> Note the "SHOULD", which is used in line with RFC 2119.
> If you are designing a protocol which would benefit from
> allowing multiple encodings, you are free to design them in.

I don't think charmod should have a SHOULD in favor either of 
single-encoding or UTF-8/16.  I think it should point out that each 
alternative is a good choice in lots of situations. -Tim

Received on Monday, 8 March 2004 13:09:39 UTC