Feedback on the proposal to change U+FFFD generation when decoding ill-formed UTF-8
Karl Williamson via Unicode
unicode at unicode.org
Mon May 15 22:23:06 CDT 2017
On 05/15/2017 04:21 AM, Henri Sivonen via Unicode wrote:
> In reference to:
> I think Unicode should not adopt the proposed change.
> The proposal is to make ICU's spec violation conforming. I think there
> is both a technical and a political reason why the proposal is a bad
Henri's claim that "The proposal is to make ICU's spec violation
conforming" is a false statement, and hence all further commentary based
on this false premise is irrelevant.
I believe that ICU is actually currently conforming to TUS.
The proposal reads:
"For UTF-8, recommend evaluating maximal subsequences based on the
original structural definition of UTF-8..."
There is nothing in here that is requiring any implementation to be
changed. The word "recommend" does not mean the same as "require".
Have you guys been so caught up in the current international political
situation that you have lost the ability to read straight?
TUS has certain requirements for UTF-8 handling, and it has certain
other "Best Practices" as detailed in 3.9. The proposal involves
changing those recommendations. It does not involve changing any
More information about the Unicode