Feedback on the proposal to change U+FFFD generation when decoding ill-formed UTF-8
Mark Davis ☕️ via Unicode
unicode at unicode.org
Sun May 21 11:37:27 CDT 2017
I actually didn't see any of this discussion until today. (
unicode at unicode.org 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
- 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 unicode.org> 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 | ewellic.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Unicode