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

[Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>]

At 20:31 02/04/11 +0100, Misha.Wolf@reuters.com wrote:

>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?

We could just point to Unicode 3.2, or to ISO. But we need
the RFC anyway. So I think it should be written so that
people don't have to go and read other documents to just
use UTF-8.

> > 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?

I think in terms of normative reference, you can point to
whatever text you like, assuming it's stable. That it is
in pieces isn't relative in terms of normativeness.

What I think is important is to point out that in 3.2, Unicode
has been updated to be as strict as the RFC always was (intended
to be).

Regards,  Martin.