On 11/04/2002 20:26:16 Kenneth Whistler wrote: > 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, Right. > 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. I'm not sure what we can do in the interim. Any suggestions? Misha ------------------------------------------------------------- --- Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Reuters Ltd.Received on Thursday, 11 April 2002 15:34:31 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Monday, 12 September 2005 15:53:26 GMT