On 05/26/2017 04:28 AM, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
> It may be worth to think about whether the Unicode standard should
> mention implementations like yours. But there should be no doubt about
> the fact that the PRI and Unicode 5.2 (and the current version of
> Unicode) are clear about what they recommend, and that that
> recommendation is based on the definition of UTF-8 at that time (and
> still in force), and not at based on a historical definition of UTF-8.
The link provided about the PRI doesn't lead to the comments.
Is there any evidence that there was a realization that the language
being adopted would lead to overlongs being split into multiple subparts?
Received on Fri May 26 2017 - 12:29:11 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Fri May 26 2017 - 12:29:11 CDT