In a message dated 2001-04-15 11:19:16 Pacific Daylight Time,
fw@deneb.enyo.de (Florian Weimer) writes:
> It seems that some WGs have not much experience in Unicode issues
> and just permit UTF-8 in places were formerly only ASCII was
> allowed, and are not fully aware of the consequences (multiple UTF-8
> representations of the same glyph, additional control characters, to
> name just two).
I hope that the claim of "multiple UTF-8 representations" does indeed refer
to glyphs, in the sense that Unicode contains both precomposed characters and
separable elements, halfwidth and fullwidth ASCII variants, etc. I hope it
does *not* refer to the nonconformant practice of representing Unicode
characters with "non-shortest" UTF-8 sequences. Instances of that are not
the fault of UTF-8.
-Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Jul 06 2001 - 00:17:16 EDT