On 06/07/2001 09:37:45 PM Peter Constable wrote:
>>So if you are saying there is ambiguous in
>>UTF-8S, it should also apply to UTF-16, which does not make sense to me.
>
>You know what? After all my harping, you're absolutely right on that
point.
I'm starting to wonder if I wasn't thinking this through enough and whether
I gave up too quickly. I'd need to think about it a little more.
The defintions have problems that need to be fixed, though, and they're
less clear for UTF-16 than they are for UTF-8. I'm becoming inclined to say
that any argumentation for or against UTF-8s on the basis of whether it
runs into problems with the defintions is a fruitless discussion at present
since it is trying to make logical deductions from defintions that are not
adequately clear, not adequately explict, and possibly also not internally
consistent.
- Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Constable
Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
Tel: +1 972 708 7485
E-mail: <peter_constable@sil.org>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Jul 06 2001 - 00:17:18 EDT