karl.vollmer at gmail.com
Mon Jan 25 10:09:37 PST 2010
> After thinking about this a bit and looking at the Unicode specs (and
> bringing it up to the VLC guys), I think that this is something best left
> up to $your_local_string_library. Defining ranges of values not allowed
> means everyone has to then check whether such values exists, the ranges
> must be exhaustive, and it generally makes it harder all around (it would
> be by far the most complex part of the spec) -- and most string libraries
> probably take care of this for you in the first place, at least when you're
> going to display the data. So I'm leaning towards letting libraries do
> their job and keeping things much less complex.
Yeah - you've got a point there. I still think it might be good to
have a "Frame Identifiers should not contain control characters"
without saying you must not. This actually brings me into the other
thing I wanted to mention, but forgot about. It would be nice if the
language in the spec was a little closer to what an RFC looks like
from the idea of using "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" as
defined in RFC2119 http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2119.html
I also like Steven's idea of those few additional statistical fields,
could be put under "RECOMMENDED" just not required.
More information about the xdg