Again, you or I might not *approve*, but there is no question of what the
UTF-8 spec now says. An implementation which does not conform to the spec
should not use a label which implies that it does.
It is possible to implement part of a spec an still conform to it. A console utility which bills itself as a NFD normalizer has no need to support NFC. It can still be described as utf-8 compliant, in that all parts of the spec that are relevant to the app are implemented as called for.
When implementing a generic I/O facility for a programming language, in addition to erring on the side of flexibility, it's a matter of interpretation as to which portion of the spec is strictly required. Certainly, being flexible enough to handle "internal use only" code points will not break comatibility with the spec, since it is entirely possible to use a pipe internally.
-- Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/
