On 1 Jun 2017, at 19:44, Asmus Freytag via Unicode <unicode@unicode.org> wrote: > > What's not OK is to take an existing recommendation and change it to > something else, just to make bug reports go away for one implementations. > That's like two sleepers fighting over a blanket that's too short. Whenever > one is covered, the other is exposed.
That’s *not* what’s happening, however many times you and Henri make that claim. > (If that language is not in the standard already, a strong "an implementation > MUST not depend on the use of a particular strategy for replacement of > invalid code sequences", clearly ought to be added). It already says (p.127, section 3.9): Although a UTF-8 conversion process is required to never consume well-formed subsequences as part of its error handling for ill-formed subsequences, such a process is not otherwise constrained in how it deals with any ill-formed subsequence itself. which probably covers that, no? Kind regards, Alastair. -- http://alastairs-place.net