=?utf-8?B?UkU6IGNvbW1lbnRzIG9uIGRyYWZ0LXllcmdlYXUtdXRmOC1yZXYy?==?utf-8?B?LTAw?=

[=?utf-8?B?RnJhbmNvaXMgWWVyZ2VhdQ==?= <FYergeau@alis.com>]

Markus Scherer wrote:
> 1. Paragraph 34: "... to be discussed in section 5."
>     must refer to section 7, not 5.
>     (It is section 5 in RFC 2279.)

Good catch.  I had forgotten to update to an <xref> element.

> 2. Section 5 (BOM)
>     I suggest to add a paragraph about Unicode 3.2's addition 
> of U+2060 Word Joiner.

What about this:

   In an attempt at diminishing the uncertainty, Unicode 3.2 adds a new
   character, U+2060 WORD JOINER, with exactly the same semantics and usage
   as U+FEFF except for the signature function, and strongly recommends its
   exclusive use for expressing word-joining semantics. Eventually,
following
   this recommendation will make it all but certain that any initial U+FEFF
   is a signature, not an intended "ZERO WIDTH NO-BREAK SPACE".


> 3. Bibliography
>     I suggest to replace the [UNICODE] book/ISBN reference 
> and the link to version 3.0
>     with a reference to "Unicode 3.2"
>     and a link to http://www.unicode.org/unicode/standard/versions/
>     (Ken and others may have different ideas here).

Fine with me.  What do others think?

BTW, the I-D staff didn't like "draft-yergeau-utf8-rev2..." they suggested
"draft-yergeau-rfc2279bis..." instead, so this is it:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-yergeau-rfc2279bis-00.txt.

-- 
François