On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 6:23 AM, Karl Williamson <pub...@khwilliamson.com> wrote: > On 05/15/2017 04:21 AM, Henri Sivonen via Unicode wrote: >> >> In reference to: >> http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2017/17168-utf-8-recommend.pdf >> >> I think Unicode should not adopt the proposed change. >> >> The proposal is to make ICU's spec violation conforming. I think there >> is both a technical and a political reason why the proposal is a bad >> idea. > > > > Henri's claim that "The proposal is to make ICU's spec violation conforming" > is a false statement, and hence all further commentary based on this false > premise is irrelevant. > > I believe that ICU is actually currently conforming to TUS.
Do you mean that ICU's behavior differs from what the PDF claims (I didn't test and took the assertion in the PDF about behavior at face value) or do you mean that despite deviating from the currently-recommended best practice the behavior is conforming, because the relevant part of the spec is mere best practice and not a requirement? > TUS has certain requirements for UTF-8 handling, and it has certain other > "Best Practices" as detailed in 3.9. The proposal involves changing those > recommendations. It does not involve changing any requirements. Even so, I think even changing a recommendation of "best practice" needs way better rationale than "feels right" or "ICU already does it" when a) major browsers (which operate in the most prominent environment of broken and hostile UTF-8) agree with the currently-recommended best practice and b) the currently-recommended best practice makes more sense for implementations where "UTF-8 decoding" is actually mere "UTF-8 validation". -- Henri Sivonen hsivo...@hsivonen.fi https://hsivonen.fi/
