[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: [ldapext] new version of LDIF

Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:

Ludovic Poitou writes:
and possibly other encodings. 

That should be optional, so LDAP implementations are not burdened with a
requrement to support charset encoding if they do not actually need it.

If a file or entry has 'charset: ...' this should not only affect
'attr: val', not 'attr:: val' and 'attr:< file'.  The two latter may
contain non-text data, e.g. a jpeg picture.

Hmmm... I think the IBM server already has such an extension. With utf-8 finally getting some traction, is there really any point to spend any energy for other charset ?

What would the other charsets offer that utf-8 cannot, I mean beyond not having to convert ?

A looser grammar would be useful too.  Allow an LDIF file
with no entries.  Extra CRLFs at the end of the file.


Sure.


I have various notes about wishes for LDIF spread around in my
mailbox...  Probably I should have undertaken to update LDIF format
myself, but I never seem to get around it.  I'll see what I can find.


Thanks.

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


_______________________________________________
Ldapext mailing list
Ldapext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ldapext