Feedback on the proposal to change U+FFFD generation when decoding ill-formed UTF-8
Alastair Houghton via Unicode
unicode at unicode.org
Fri Jun 2 03:02:25 CDT 2017
On 1 Jun 2017, at 19:44, Asmus Freytag via Unicode <unicode at unicode.org> wrote:
> What's not OK is to take an existing recommendation and change it to something else, just to make bug reports go away for one implementations. That's like two sleepers fighting over a blanket that's too short. Whenever one is covered, the other is exposed.
That’s *not* what’s happening, however many times you and Henri make that claim.
> (If that language is not in the standard already, a strong "an implementation MUST not depend on the use of a particular strategy for replacement of invalid code sequences", clearly ought to be added).
It already says (p.127, section 3.9):
Although a UTF-8 conversion process is required to never consume well-formed
subsequences as part of its error handling for ill-formed subsequences, such
a process is not otherwise constrained in how it deals with any ill-formed
which probably covers that, no?
More information about the Unicode