Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email protected]> writes: > But there is another question: should we try to save codepoint space > by using the same EDE for many different uses (and using the extra text > to demultiplex) or should we use the fact that the registration policy > is quite open to register many codes? RFC 8914, section 5.2, does not > offer any guidance.
IMHO, the answer here is "do you need a machine readable code(s) to differentiate between different actions when received?" and "is this for human debugging only and text works just fine?" Some may think that we need many code points because machine readable is rather nice to have for further debugging by tools that understand the differences, and others may think "this is only informational/debugging so we only need a text field". I lie more on the line of "having more codes with precise definitions is better". The info code is 16 bits (with some reserved for private use), so we have a *bit* [sic] of room to spare. We've used 30 out of 49152 code points, so [sarcasm] we'd better start conserving now! We've already used 0.061% of the code space![/sarcasm]. -- Wes Hardaker USC/ISI _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
