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

[Karl Williamson via Unicode]

On 05/26/2017 04:28 AM, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
> It may be worth to think about whether the Unicode standard should 
> mention implementations like yours. But there should be no doubt about 
> the fact that the PRI and Unicode 5.2 (and the current version of 
> Unicode) are clear about what they recommend, and that that 
> recommendation is based on the definition of UTF-8 at that time (and 
> still in force), and not at based on a historical definition of UTF-8.

The link provided about the PRI doesn't lead to the comments.

Is there any evidence that there was a realization that the language 
being adopted would lead to overlongs being split into multiple subparts?