RE: Proposed changes to UTF-8 draft

[Francois Yergeau <FYergeau@alis.com>]

Martin Duerst wrote:
> Just to be sure: Is a 4-byte sequence that encodes a codepoint
> beyond 10FFFF legal in your new version of the draft or not?

Good question, I had not thought about it.  Thinking about it now, my take
is that the essence of the proposal is to restrict UTF-8 to the
UTF-16-accessible range, which means 0-10FFFF.  Anything beyond that would
be out of bounds.

Note that my "new version of the draft" doesn't exist yet, I just floated a
proposal that I think makes sense.  Probably I should produce a new draft
ASAP to have something concrete to discuss and to root out any devilish
details, such as the above.

-- 
Fran�ois