Re: RFC 2279 (UTF-8) to Full Standard

[Misha.Wolf@reuters.com]

On 11/04/2002 20:26:16 Kenneth Whistler wrote:
> Misha,
>
> > > Why not just point to the definition in the Unicode Standard, Version 3.2?
> >
> > That is a possibility.  It never was before, as prior to
> > Unicode 3.2, the Unicode definition of UTF-8 was seriously
> > flawed, allowing irregular code unit sequences.  On the
> > other hand, the definition of UTF-8 in Unicode 3.2 is made
> > up of amendments to existing text in Unicode 3.0, is it not?
> > That isn't a suitable format for a normative reference.
>
> This will get cleared up considerably in the text of Unicode 4.0,

Right.

> but I agree that it is rather problematical to try to point
> to the text of Unicode 3.2, since it isn't all sitting in
> one place for clear reference yet.

I'm not sure what we can do in the interim.  Any suggestions?

Misha





------------------------------------------------------------- ---
        Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com

Any views expressed in this message are those of  the  individual
sender,  except  where  the sender specifically states them to be
the views of Reuters Ltd.