Toby, I think you forgot to comment on these objections that have also  
been coming up from time to time:

* Introduction of UTF-8S would merely add to the myriad forms people would  
already have to support, and it is insufficiently distinuguishable from  
UTF-8.

* encoding ambiguities in the surrogate pairs vs 32-bit.

* implies a subsequent request for UTF-32S (mentioned in the original  
proposal), thus two more forms are needed; but even that solution doesn't  
gain consistency, it just gains two new forms.

        Rick


Reply via email to