Re: Implementing encoded-character

["Aaron Stone" <aaron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Apr 5, 2007, Ned Freed <ned.freed@xxxxxxxxxxx> said:

>> > > > "${unicode:200000}" -> error
>> > > > "${unicode:2000000}" -> "${unicode:2000000}"
> 
>> Ugh, if it looks like encoded-char and walks like encoded-char...
> 
>> My test implementation left-shifts the current value of the encoded
>> character, then adds the next hex digit. When it hits whitespace, it
>> checks if the value is within appropriate bounds; if so, stores the
>> character then loops, if not, stores '?' then loops. Would we really
>> rather be very strict about this? I'm in favor of some flexibility.
> 
> You need to strictly implement the grammar in the specificaiton, whatever
> that ends up being. Any flexibility will allow someone to write one of
> these things that works in your implementation but silently fails and causes
> wierd results elsewhere.
> 
> Past experience with RFC 2047 encoded-words has shown that allowing leeway in
> this situations is a curse, not a blessing.

Indeed, point taken!

Aaron