Re: RFC 2279 (UTF-8) to Full Standard

Misha,

> > Why not just point to the definition in the Unicode Standard, Version 3.2?
> 
> That is a possibility.  It never was before, as prior to
> Unicode 3.2, the Unicode definition of UTF-8 was seriously
> flawed, allowing irregular code unit sequences.  On the
> other hand, the definition of UTF-8 in Unicode 3.2 is made
> up of amendments to existing text in Unicode 3.0, is it not?
> That isn't a suitable format for a normative reference.

This will get cleared up considerably in the text of Unicode 4.0,
but I agree that it is rather problematical to try to point
to the text of Unicode 3.2, since it isn't all sitting in
one place for clear reference yet.

--Ken