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

[Tony Hansen <tony@att.com>]

One of the advantages about UTF8 that I've repeatedly heard touted was 
that it was NOT restricted to 10FFFF, and indeed could handle the entire 
32-bit codespace when such codes were eventually allocated. This was 
often used as an argument against other encodings, such as UTF16, that 
didn't have the same property.

	Tony Hansen
	tony@att.com

Mark Davis wrote:

> Yes, they have; and it is quoted in the UTF-32 TR. Moreover, it is of
> course safest if the RFC UTF-8 is restricted to 10FFFF, since any
> higher values will not convert to UTF-16, and could even cause
> security problems if converted incorrectly (e.g. overlaying legitimate
> codes).