From: Martin J. Dürst (duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp)
Date: Tue Aug 03 2010 - 03:19:20 CDT
Dear Unicode Experts,
In a discussion about a new protocol, there was some issue about how to
replace illegal bytes in UTF-8 with U+FFFD. That let me remember that
there was once a Public Review Issue about this, and that as a result, I
added something to the Ruby (programming language) codebase. I traced
this back to the method test_public_review_issue_121 added at
http://svn.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/trunk/test/ruby/test_transcode.rb?r1=18291&r2=18290&pathrev=18291
and from there to http://www.unicode.org/review/pr-121.html.
What I now would like to know is what became of the UTC "tentative
preference for option #2", and where this is documented, and if
possible, which other programming languages and libraries use or don't
use this preference.
On a higher level, this also suggests that it would be very good to add
a bit more of (meta)data to these review issues, such as date opened and
date closed and resolution.
After manipulating the URI a bit, I got to
http://www.unicode.org/review/ and from there to
http://www.unicode.org/review/resolved-pri-100.html, where I can find:
Resolution: Closed 2008-08-29. The UTC decided to adopt option 2 of the PRI.
This should be directly linked from
http://www.unicode.org/review/pr-121.html (or just put that information
on that page). Also, I'm still interested about where the result of this
resolution is nailed down (a new version of the standard, with chapter
and verse, or a TR or some such.
Regards, Martin.
-- #-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University #-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Aug 03 2010 - 03:24:13 CDT