From: "Mark Davis" <mark@macchiato.com>
> - A significant reason for CESU-8 garnering enough support was that its
> introduction allows the definition of UTF-8 itself to be tightened, to
> formally exclude the 3-byte surrogates both in reading and writing.
I do not see this as a valid argument at all -- they are two entirely
separate issues. Has XML been brought to its knees by disallowing the
six-byte form of supplementary characters? Will it?
No, it hasn't. And it won't.
The truth is that the definition could be tightened up now by corrigendum or
in 3.2, and anyone who wants the less restrictive definition has a solution
already: either keep it to themselves (i.e. internal) or use the definition
in a prior version of Unicode.
Such a requirement would cause companies to eagerly push people from the
six-byte format, something that CSEU-8 would never do on its own -- since it
will promote exactly the opposite type of activity.
MichKa
Michael Kaplan
Trigeminal Software, Inc.
http://www.trigeminal.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Mon Sep 17 2001 - 11:51:08 EDT