Re: wcwidth update

[Thomas Wolff <towo@xxxxxxxx>]

Egmont wrote:

> > UTF-8 is clearly defined by RFC 2279 which maintains the clear 
> > 1-to-6-bytes encoding scheme of RFC 2044 with no confusion - and will 
> > hopefully remain so.

> FYI: RFC 2279 is obsoleted by RFC 3629 which defines UTF-8 as a 1-to-4-bytes
> encoding scheme. Sad but true...
I see. This is not noticed in RFC 2279 as it would usually be...

These well-known documents are called "RFC" so what is actually the 
process of placing a comment to them? I see no mechanism, nor a 
mechanism to be notified in time about a planned change to an RFC.
François Yergeau, could you please comment on the issue I have raised 
(see previous message referred below)? Merci.


Marcin wrote:
> Why sad? They weren't going to be any characters defined above U+10FFFF
> anyway.
Because, as I tried to point out in my previous message
<http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/2007-05/msg00002.html>
this may cause authors of terminal emulators (xterm, rxvt, ...) to 
change the display behaviour of 5- and 6-bit sequences which raises 
absolutely unnecessary confusion and additional inconsistency in the 
already chaotic width handling and recognition of terminal properties 
and the interworking with applications.


Thomas

--
Linux-UTF8:   i18n of Linux on all levels
Archive:      http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/