Philippe suggested: > I don't object proposals to define new "UTF-*" forms, > but this should still be > proposals for an otherwise distinctly named encoding form, chosen by the > proposal author out of the "UTF-*" naming space.
The UTC clearly does object to proposals to define "new 'UTF-*' forms". But if what you mean by "out of the 'UTF-*' naming space" is that people coming up with new bit twiddles on characters should avoid calling them UTF-whatever, and use names such as, for example, "Marc Crispin 9-Bit Unicode Twiddle" (MC9BUT) or whatever, then I think we are in agreement. > I have seen several other informal proposals for "UTF-*" forms/schemes. > All this is just confusive, and their authors should imagine their own names > for reference. What do you think of this idea? It is, indeed, "confusive". Some of us have deliberately contributed to the confusion with tongue-in-cheek additions. See my own UTF-17 (draft-whistler-utf17-00.txt). I would not object if henceforward people referred to that as KW-UTF-17, to avoid confusion. :-) --Ken
