On 05/26/2017 04:28 AM, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
It may be worth to think about whether the Unicode standard should
mention implementations like yours. But there should be no doubt about
the fact that the PRI and Unicode 5.2 (and the current version of
Unicode) are clear about what they recommend, and that that
recommendation is based on the definition of UTF-8 at that time (and
still in force), and not at based on a historical definition of UTF-8.
The link provided about the PRI doesn't lead to the comments.
Is there any evidence that there was a realization that the language
being adopted would lead to overlongs being split into multiple subparts?
