Re: UTF-8 Corrigendum, new Glossary

From: G. Adam Stanislav (
Date: Thu Nov 30 2000 - 01:59:51 EST

At 21:08 29-11-2000 -0800, Mark Davis wrote:
>1. The Unicode Technical Committee has modified the definition of UTF-8 to
>forbid conformant implementations from interpreting non-shortest forms for
>BMP characters,

I find this silly. That creation of such forms would be forbidden I can see
and agree to. But interpretation? I understand the reasoning when security
is an issue. But why make it flat illegal? There are many applications
where such a sequence poses no security danger.

Whatever happened to the ancient "abusus non tollit usum" principle? Looks
like Big Brother to me...


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:15 EDT