In <3E1DB169(_dot_)6080203(_at_)alex(_dot_)blilly(_dot_)com> Bruce Lilly
<blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> writes:
Charles, in spite of having been shown the differences in the past, you persist
in claiming that there are none. RFC 2044 is not a Unicode document, and has
long been obsoleted.
Yes, I should have RFC 2279 rather than 2044.
One clue that you are wrong is the following quotation
from Unicode Technical report 28:
"Most notable among the corrigenda to the Standard is a further tightening of
the definition of UTF-8, to eliminate irregular UTF-8 and to bring the Unicode
specification of UTF-8 more completely into line with other specifications of
UTF-8. "
Obviously if the Unicode consortium states unequivocally that there are
multiple utf-8 specifications which differ, there cannot be "precicely
one" utf-8 specification.
But it doesn't. Unicode 3.2 is the current standard, and defines precisely
what is allowed in UTF-8. All earlier versions are obsolete.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl(_at_)clw(_dot_)cs(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk Snail: 5
Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5