Re: UTF-8 revision

[Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no]

Francois,
your revision seems good to me (as usual).

Some nits:

- The text now appears to treat Unicode and ISO 10646 as bodies of
  equal standing. I would like to refer as much as possible ONLY to
  ISO 10646, and remove "unnecessary" references to Unicode, keeping
  only enough information to ensure that a reader sees how Unicode is
  equivalent to ISO 10646 as of now.
  The main reason is because of the problems John Klensin mentioned
  about ISO being more of an "acceptable standards body" in the IETF
  than the Unicode Consortium is; the other reason is that I *hate*
  depending on two variable external references when one is enough.

- The text in section 5 is written in tentative mode; a sentence like
  "This string would label media types containing text...." will look
  odd 3 years after it's common practice to do so; "This string labels
  media types" looks much better to my eye.
  You're defining here, not asking.

- Just go ahead and register UNICODE-1-1-UTF-8 as part of this
  document, referencing RFC 1641 for the naming scheme, and
  discouraging it; this language seems fine otherwise.

- Note: I think it makes sense to call this document for Proposed
  Standard; there is no particular value in having its status be
  Informational. (The two other documents in the package, the charset
  policy and the registration document, are both headed for BCP, I
  think; objectors speak up!)

Thought for list: One alternative to registering UNICODE-1-1-UTF-8 is
to standardize the "charset-edition" of RFC 1922 section 4.1.
Comments on this alternative?

                    Harald A