Re: UTF-8S (was: Re: ISO vs Unicode UTF-8)

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>]

Followup to:  <B0016930025@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
By author:    Misha Wolf <Misha.Wolf@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In newsgroup: linux.utf8
>
> 
> 
> On 04/06/2001 17:48:16 Michael (michka) Kaplan wrote:
> [...]
> | Well, in this case, there are implementations who do this and it *is*
> | documented as legal for a parser to do. Sorry if it messes up future
> | implementations, but someone is going to get hurt here -- and between the
> | two UTF-16 has been around/accepted longer and has more implementations.
> |
> | I still think it is best not to do anything with the format at all, I was
> | just pointing out why official recognition may not be necessary (reason
> | #623).
> 
> Let's be careful with the word "legal".  The strange (per-)version of
> UTF-8 which re-encodes UTF-16 is legal input as far as The Unicode
> Standard is concerned.  It is, however, totally illegal as far as the
> IETF, the Internet, the W3C, the WWW, XML, and HTML are concerned.
> 

As far as the Unicode standard is concerned, they're also illegal to
emit.

	-hpa
-- 
<hpa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> at work, <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt
-
Linux-UTF8:   i18n of Linux on all levels
Archive:      http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/