In <3E201A63(_dot_)6060100(_at_)Sonietta(_dot_)blilly(_dot_)com> Bruce Lilly
<blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> writes:
Charles Lindsey wrote:
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.
So overnight all of the MS Windows 95, 98, NT, and 2000 implementations
mysteriously vanished?
That is Bill Gates' problem. However, I doubt any of them ever generated
the deprecated (and now illegal) forms of UTF-8.
When precisely did RFC 2279 become obsoleted?
It didn't (though it soon will).
However, it forbade generation of the deprecated forms, and discouraged
(should) attempts to interpret them. It did not address the surrogate
issue but, since the codes now forbidden would map into unallocated
Unicode code points, it did not provide any justification for generating
them either.
But all that is moot in the present context, because the Usefor draft
explicitly limits the UTF-8 that may be generated of interpreted in
compliant Netnews Articles in a manner consistent with the latest Unicode
standards.
--
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