Re: [ldapext] UTF-8 full support in LDIF / LDIF v2

[Yves Dorfsman <yves@zioup.com>]

Jim Willeke wrote:

> Is the suggestion to utilize and indicator similar to the HTTP charset 
> parameter (Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8) ?

I don't think we ever got it that well defined, but I guess, yes this would 
be one way of doing it.

I still think it is a bad idea. It make sense for http, because most html 
out there, even today, is not UTF-8, the migration is happening, but it has 
not happened. On the other hand, UTF-8 has been supported by LDAP for a long 
time, and is typically the default. As a matter of fact, LDIF already uses 
UTF-8 by default today, but the issue is that it has to be base64 encoded.

Jim: Do you have specific cases where using non-Unicode charsets would be an 
asset ?




PS: As mentioned earlier, I could see value in adding "encoding:" if it 
means an encoding of Unicode, but we need to keep in mind that the other 
encodings are more complicated to implement.
--
Yves.
http://www.sollers.ca/

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