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.

Received on Friday, 12 April 2002 03:26:50 UTC