Feedback on the proposal to change U+FFFD generation when decoding ill-formed UTF-8

Mark Davis ☕️ via Unicode unicode at
Sun May 21 11:37:27 CDT 2017

I actually didn't see any of this discussion until today. (
unicode at mail was going into my spam folder...) I started
reading the thread, but it looks like a lot of it is OT, so just scanned
some of them.

A few brief points:

   1. There is plenty of time for public comment, since it was
targeted at *Unicode
   11*, the release for about a year from now, *not* *Unicode 10*, due this
   2. When the UTC "approves a change", that change is subject to comment,
   and the UTC can always reverse or modify its approval up until the meeting
   before release date. *So there are ca. 9 months in which to comment.*
   3. The modified text is a set of guidelines, not requirements. So no
   conformance clause is being changed.
   - If people really believed that the guidelines in that section should
      have been conformance clauses, they should have proposed that at
some point.
      - And still can proposal that — as I said, there is plenty of time.


On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 10:41 PM, Doug Ewell via Unicode <
unicode at> wrote:

> Henri Sivonen wrote:
> > I find it shocking that the Unicode Consortium would change a
> > widely-implemented part of the standard (regardless of whether Unicode
> > itself officially designates it as a requirement or suggestion) on
> > such flimsy grounds.
> >
> > I'd like to register my feedback that I believe changing the best
> > practices is wrong.
> Perhaps surprisingly, it's already too late. UTC approved this change
> the day after the proposal was written.
> --
> Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US |
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Unicode mailing list