On 18 May 2017, at 07:18, Henri Sivonen via Unicode <unicode@unicode.org> 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 machine approach, you need to add maybe two additional error states (two-trailing-bytes-to-eat-then-fffd and one-trailing-byte-to-eat-then-fffd) on top of the states you already have. The implementation complexity argument is a *total* red herring. > 2) Procedural: To be considered in the future, proposals to change > what the standard suggests or requires implementations to do should > consider different implementation strategies and discuss the impact of > the change in the light of the different implementation strategies (in > the matter at hand, I think the proposal should have included a > discussion of the impact on UTF-8 validation state machines) Well, let’s discuss that here and now (see above). Do you, for some reason, think that it’s more complicated than I suggest? Kind regards, Alastair. -- http://alastairs-place.net
