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

> At 20:59 02/04/09 +0200, Patrik F舁tstr？ wrote:
> >--On 2002-04-08 14.26 -0400 Francois Yergeau 
> <FYergeau@alis.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Yes.
> >
> >Good. I am happy you are interested in doing this work.

OK, I got started on this.  I just submitted an I-D with a first load of
changes.  Attached is an HTML version.


Martin Duerst wrote:
> Here is the list of the main things that I think should be done:
> 
> - Say something about the BOM (probably something along the lines:
>    this exists, but is not recommended)

New section added.  Mostly from RFC 2781.

> - Remove some historical stuff, move the rest of it to a separate
>    section (in the back rather than in the front).

I removed quite a bit.  There was only a single para leftover, so I left it
in the Intro.

> - Check/update terminology with respect to UCS-2/UTF-16,...

Done.  Quite a bit of change in "Introduction" and "UTF-8 definition"

> - Check/update references

Done.
 
> Any comments? Any other main points?

These are other changes I've done:

   o  Added a Changes section

   o  Note warning against decoding of invalid sequences turned into a
      normative MUST NOT.

   o  Added TOC.

   o  Removed suggested UNICODE-1-1-UTF-8 MIME charset registration.

   o  New "Notational conventions" section about RFC 2119 and U+HHHH
      notation.

   o  Pointer to Unicode Consortium Policies added in "Versions of the
      standards" section.

   o  Added a fourth example with a non-BMP character and a BOM.

Regards,

-- 
Francois