In message <200011300644.WAA03560@unicode.org>
"G. Adam Stanislav" <email@example.com> wrote:
> 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.
Consistency. If some implementations won't read the non-shortest forms and
some will, you end up in the mess that HTML has fallen into due to lack of
rigorous parsing. "This file is illegal." "But it works on my system!"
-- Kevin Bracey, Principal Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology plc Tel: +44 (0) 1223 518566 645 Newmarket Road Fax: +44 (0) 1223 518526 Cambridge, CB5 8PB, United Kingdom WWW: http://www.pace.co.uk/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:15 EDT