Karl Vollmer karl.vollmer at
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
defined in RFC2119

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 mailing list