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

At 18:10 02/04/11 -0700, Kenneth Whistler wrote:

>I agree, even though the Unicode Standard only describes UTF-8
>out to U+10FFFF. 10646 still gives the full scheme to U-7FFFFFFF,
>and it will be awhile (if ever) before we can change that to
>deprecate all the 5- and 6-byte values.

I thought ISO had adopted a standing policy on not allocating
anything beyond U+10FFFF. Ken, do you know the exact status of
this? Can you tell us?

>So I see no good reason
>right now to put RFC 2279 out of synch with 10646, particularly
>if it would slow down a revision of RFC 2279 now.

I think the new document should clearly state that codepoints above
U+10FFFF cannot be encoded in UTF-16, that the Unicode consortium
won't allocate any codepoints above that, that ISO has some relevant
policy (if they do),... Also, pointing to UTF-32 might be a good idea.
(I just found out that it has been approved for registration, but
is not yet listed in the relevant file.)


Regards,   Martin.