On 04:07 pm, martin at v.loewis.de wrote: >>Martin, if you're going to stick with the half-surrogate trick, would >>you mind adding a section to the PEP on "alternate encoding >>strategies", >>explaining why the NULL method was not selected? > >In the PEP process, it isn't my job to criticize competing proposals. >Instead, proponents of competing proposals should write alternative >PEPs, which then get criticized on their own. As the PEP author, I >would >have to collect the objections to the PEP in the PEP, which I did; >I'm not convinced that I would have to also collect all alternative >proposals that people come up with in the PEP (except when they are in >fact amendments that I accept). Fair enough. I have probably misunderstood the process. I dimly recalled reading some PEPs which addressed alternate approaches in this way and I thought it was part of the process. Anyway, congratulations on getting the PEP accepted, good luck with the implementation. Thanks for addressing my question.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4