Re: Comparing Raw Values of the Age Property

On Tue, 23 May 2017 17:44:49 -0700 Ken Whistler via Unicode wrote: > Ah, but keep in mind, if projecting out to Version 23.0 (in the year > 2030, by our current schedule), there is a significant chance that > particular UCD data files may have morphed into something

Re: Comparing Raw Values of the Age Property

Richard On 5/23/2017 1:48 PM, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote: The object is to generate code*now* that, up to say Unicode Version 23.0, can work out, from the UCD files DerivedAge.txt and PropertyValueAliases.txt, whether an arbitrary code point was included by some Unicode version

Re: Feedback on the proposal to change U+FFFD generation when decoding ill-formed UTF-8

On 05/23/2017 12:20 PM, Asmus Freytag (c) via Unicode wrote: On 5/23/2017 10:45 AM, Markus Scherer wrote: On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 7:05 AM, Asmus Freytag via Unicode > wrote: So, if the proposal for Unicode really was more of a "feels right"

Re: Comparing Raw Values of the Age Property

On Tue, 23 May 2017 05:29:33 -0700 Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote: > On 5/23/2017 4:04 AM, Janusz S. Bien via Unicode wrote: > > Quote/Cytat - Manuel Strehl via Unicode (Tue > > 23 May 2017 11:33:24 AM CEST): > > > >> The rising standard in the world

Re: Feedback on the proposal to change U+FFFD generation when decoding ill-formed UTF-8

Asmus Freytag \(c\) wrote: > And why add a recommendation that changes that from completely up to > the implementation (or groups of implementations) to something where > one way of doing it now has to justify itself? A recommendation already exists, at the end of Section 3.9. The current

RE: Feedback on the proposal to change U+FFFD generation when decoding ill-formed UTF-8

> If the thread has made one thing clear is that there's no consensus in the > wider community > that one approach is obviously better. When it comes to ill-formed sequences, > all bets are off. > Simple as that. > Adding a "recommendation" this late in the game is just bad standards policy. I

Re: Feedback on the proposal to change U+FFFD generation when decoding ill-formed UTF-8

On 5/23/2017 10:45 AM, Markus Scherer wrote: On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 7:05 AM, Asmus Freytag via Unicode > wrote: So, if the proposal for Unicode really was more of a "feels right" and not a "deviate at your peril" situation (or necessary

Re: Feedback on the proposal to change U+FFFD generation when decoding ill-formed UTF-8

> On 23 May 2017, at 18:45, Markus Scherer via Unicode > wrote: > > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 7:05 AM, Asmus Freytag via Unicode > wrote: >> So, if the proposal for Unicode really was more of a "feels right" and not a >> "deviate at your peril"

Re: Feedback on the proposal to change U+FFFD generation when decoding ill-formed UTF-8

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 7:05 AM, Asmus Freytag via Unicode < unicode@unicode.org> wrote: > So, if the proposal for Unicode really was more of a "feels right" and not > a "deviate at your peril" situation (or necessary escape hatch), then we > are better off not making a RECOMMEDATION that goes

RE: Feedback on the proposal to change U+FFFD generation when decoding ill-formed UTF-8

+ the list, which somehow my reply seems to have lost. > I may have missed something, but I think nobody actually proposed to change > the recommendations into requirements No thanks, that would be a breaking change for some implementations (like mine) and force them to become non-complying or

Re: Feedback on the proposal to change U+FFFD generation when decoding ill-formed UTF-8

On 5/23/2017 1:24 AM, Martin J. Dürst via Unicode wrote: Hello Mark, On 2017/05/22 01:37, Mark Davis ☕️ via Unicode wrote: I actually didn't see any of this discussion until today. Many thanks for

Re: Comparing Raw Values of the Age Property

2017-05-23 8:43 GMT+02:00 Asmus Freytag via Unicode : > On 5/22/2017 3:49 PM, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote: > >> One of the objectives is to use a current version of the UCD to >> determine, for example, which characters were in Version x.y. One >> needs that for a

Re: Comparing Raw Values of the Age Property

On 5/23/2017 4:04 AM, Janusz S. Bien via Unicode wrote: Quote/Cytat - Manuel Strehl via Unicode (Tue 23 May 2017 11:33:24 AM CEST): The rising standard in the world of web development (and others) is called »Semantic Versioning« [1], that many projects adhere to or

Re: Comparing Raw Values of the Age Property

Quote/Cytat - Manuel Strehl via Unicode (Tue 23 May 2017 11:33:24 AM CEST): The rising standard in the world of web development (and others) is called »Semantic Versioning« [1], that many projects adhere to or sometimes must actively explain, why they don't. The

Re: Comparing Raw Values of the Age Property

The rising standard in the world of web development (and others) is called »Semantic Versioning« [1], that many projects adhere to or sometimes must actively explain, why they don't. The structure of a »semantic version« string is a set of three integers, MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH, where the »sematics«

Re: Feedback on the proposal to change U+FFFD generation when decoding ill-formed UTF-8

On 23 May 2017, at 07:10, Jonathan Coxhead via Unicode wrote: > > On 18/05/2017 1:58 am, Alastair Houghton via Unicode wrote: >> On 18 May 2017, at 07:18, Henri Sivonen via Unicode >> wrote: >> >>> the decision complicates U+FFFD generation when

Re: Feedback on the proposal to change U+FFFD generation when decoding ill-formed UTF-8

Hello Mark, On 2017/05/22 01:37, Mark Davis ☕️ via Unicode wrote: I actually didn't see any of this discussion until today. Many thanks for chiming in. ( unicode@unicode.org mail was going into my spam folder...) I started reading the thread, but it looks like a lot of it is OT, As is

Re: Comparing Raw Values of the Age Property

On 5/22/2017 3:49 PM, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote: One of the objectives is to use a current version of the UCD to determine, for example, which characters were in Version x.y. One needs that for a regular expression such as [:Age=3.0:], which also matches all characters that have

Re: Feedback on the proposal to change U+FFFD generation when decoding ill-formed UTF-8

On 18/05/2017 1:58 am, Alastair Houghton via Unicode wrote: On 18 May 2017, at 07:18, Henri Sivonen via Unicode wrote: the decision complicates U+FFFD generation when validating UTF-8 by state machine. It *really* doesn’t. Even if you’re hell bent on using a pure state