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
<unicode@unicode.org <mailto: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 against collective practice.
I think the standard is quite clear about this:
Although a UTF-8 conversion process is required to never consume
well-formed subsequences as part of its error handling for
ill-formed subsequences, such a process is not otherwise
constrained in how it deals with any ill-formed subsequence
itself. An ill-formed subsequence consisting of more than one code
unit could be treated as a single error or as multiple errors.
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?
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.
A./
Unless I misunderstand, you are missing the point. There is already a
recommendation listed in TUS, and that recommendation appears to have
been added without much thought. There is no proposal to add a
recommendation "this late in the game".
