Feedback on the proposal to change U+FFFD generation when decoding ill-formed UTF-8

Alastair Houghton via Unicode unicode at
Tue May 16 02:13:45 CDT 2017

On 15 May 2017, at 23:16, Shawn Steele via Unicode <unicode at> wrote:
> I’m not sure how the discussion of “which is better” relates to the discussion of ill-formed UTF-8 at all.

It doesn’t, which is a point I made in my original reply to Henry.  The only reason I answered his anti-UTF-16 rant at all was to point out that some of us don’t think UTF-16 is a mistake, and in fact can see various benefits (*particularly* as an in-memory representation).

> And to the last, saying “you cannot process UTF-16 without handling surrogates” seems to me to be the equivalent of saying “you cannot process UTF-8 without handling lead & trail bytes”.  That’s how the respective encodings work.


Kind regards,



More information about the Unicode mailing list