L2/04-040 Source: Mark Davis Subject: Comments on L2/04-035 Comments on draft UTS BOCU-1 Please add to the registry and agenda: Comments on L2/04-035 Comments on draft UTS BOCU-1 Some points (including some from Markus) As we decided at a UTC, those UTRs that could reasonably have conformance requirements (e.g. they specify in some detail a format or structure that could be verified) should be UTSs and have formal conformance clauses that are sufficiently detailed to be testable. This doesn't mean that they are particularly 'better' than the UTRs, just that they can be implemented to. A UTS for X does *not* mean that X is required for implementing the Unicode Standard; it is then just clear what it means when someone does say they implement X. BOCU-1 certainly satisfies that goal, it provides a compressed data format that is useful in a number of contexts, and meets certain requirements that SCSU does not. It is not, however, a form of Unicode like a UTF; it would never be used as a process code, for example. There is no intention to deprecate SCSU. Mark