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

At 20:31 02/04/11 +0100, Misha.Wolf@reuters.com wrote:

>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?

We could just point to Unicode 3.2, or to ISO. But we need
the RFC anyway. So I think it should be written so that
people don't have to go and read other documents to just
use UTF-8.

> > 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?

I think in terms of normative reference, you can point to
whatever text you like, assuming it's stable. That it is
in pieces isn't relative in terms of normativeness.

What I think is important is to point out that in 3.2, Unicode
has been updated to be as strict as the RFC always was (intended
to be).

Regards,  Martin.

Received on Friday, 12 April 2002 02:15:52 UTC