On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 05:28:51PM -0800, David Starner wrote:
Is that your rule in all cases, to try and guess what they meant and do
that?
Not in all cases. But this particular Ister interpreter is designed
to run CGI scripts. When it comes to CGI languages, I have the philosophy
of graceful
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"G. Adam Stanislav" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 21:08 29-11-2000 -0800, Mark Davis wrote:
1. The Unicode Technical Committee has modified the definition of UTF-8 to
forbid conformant implementations from interpreting non-shortest forms for
BMP
-
From: "G. Adam Stanislav" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Unicode List" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 22:42
Subject: Re: UTF-8 Corrigendum, new Glossary
At 21:08 29-11-2000 -0800, Mark Davis wrote:
1. The Unicode Technical Committee has modified the d
"G. Adam Stanislav" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. The Unicode Technical Committee has modified the definition of
UTF-8 to forbid conformant implementations from interpreting non-
shortest forms for BMP characters,
I find this silly. That creation of such forms would be forbidden I
can see
Kevin Bracey wrote:
I find this silly. That creation of such forms would be forbidden I can see
and agree to. But interpretation? I understand the reasoning when security
is an issue. But why make it flat illegal? There are many applications
where such a sequence poses no security danger.
a
Michael Kaplan
Trigeminal Software, Inc.
http://www.trigeminal.com/
- Original Message -
From: "Markus Scherer" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Unicode List" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 10:18 AM
Subject: Re: UTF-8 Corrigendum, new Glossary
Kevin Brac
On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 07:12:37AM -0800, Mark Davis wrote:
We know of specific situations that caused problems, as outlined in the
Corrigendum.
That does not justify forbidding it in other situations (ask the NRA :) ).
Adam
--
When a finger points at the Moon... do you look at the Moon?
Or,
On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 10:18:07AM -0800, Markus Scherer wrote:
you are free to write and use a non-conformant implementation. just be aware of what
that means... :-)
markus
I guess it means I'm a non-conformist. :)
I am currently working on software that translates mark-up made in one
mark-up
Adam said:
On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 10:18:07AM -0800, Markus Scherer wrote:
you are free to write and use a non-conformant implementation. just be aware of
what that means... :-)
markus
I guess it means I'm a non-conformist. :)
I am currently working on software that translates mark-up
On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 04:48:56PM -0800, G. Adam Stanislav wrote:
If the source (in Ister) uses illegal but decipherable UTF-8, my
software accepts it. Naturally, before it sends it out it transforms
it to perfectly legal UTF-8. The idea I should reject it is silly
(and, no, the "internal
We would like to call two items to people's attention.
1. The Unicode Technical Committee has modified the definition of UTF-8 to
forbid conformant implementations from interpreting non-shortest forms for
BMP characters, and clarified some of the conformance clauses. For more
information, see
At 21:08 29-11-2000 -0800, Mark Davis wrote:
1. The Unicode Technical Committee has modified the definition of UTF-8 to
forbid conformant implementations from interpreting non-shortest forms for
BMP characters,
I find this silly. That creation of such forms would be forbidden I can see
and agree
12 matches
Mail list logo
