In <3E22BA08(_dot_)2070600(_at_)Sonietta(_dot_)blilly(_dot_)com> Bruce Lilly
<blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> writes:
Charles Lindsey wrote:
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.
Please use a little common sense; Unicode 3.1 was introduced in mid-2001.
All of the aforementioned "operating" systems predate that (and many are
still in widespread use).
Indeed so. But do any of them generate UTF-8 that is unacceptable to the
Unicode 3.2 standard? Because if they do not, then they do not pose any
problem.
And if they do, then they are not suitable for generating news articles
conforming to Usefor.
--
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