> From: Peter_Constable@sil.org [mailto:Peter_Constable@sil.org]
> The defintions have problems that need to be fixed, though,
> and they're
> less clear for UTF-16 than they are for UTF-8. I'm becoming
> inclined to say
> that any argumentation for or against UTF-8s on the basis of
> whether it
> runs into problems with the defintions is a fruitless
> discussion at present
> since it is trying to make logical deductions from defintions
> that are not
> adequately clear, not adequately explict, and possibly also
> not internally
> consistent.
Following this discussion, I am getting confused. I had always
considered UTF-8s to be UTF-8 encoded UTF-16. Is there some reason why this
model doesn't work? If it does, aren't the technical merits of UTF-8s
directly tied to those of UTF-8 and UTF-16? Frankly, I don't think that
there are any technical issues with UTF-8s, it's the practical issues where
the real disaster could happen.
/|/|ike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Jul 06 2001 - 00:17:18 EDT