Re: UTF-8N?

From: Kenneth Whistler (
Date: Thu Jun 22 2000 - 14:41:26 EDT

John Cowan wrote:

> Kenneth Whistler wrote:
> > Now we are pushing through the long, bureaucratic process of getting
> > this accepted into 10646-1, so it we maintain synchronicity with a
> > joint publication of it as a *standard* character.
> So a fair statement of what you hope to achieve is: U+2060 will be
> the zero-width non-breaking space, or zero-width word joiner depending on
> how you look at it, and U+FFFE will be a byte order mark, which MAY
> (but SHOULD NOT) be used with the same semantics as U+2060.

Yes. The Unicode Standard will deprecate the use of U+FFEF (Note: not U+FFFE)
as a zero-width non-breaking space (despite its formal name).

And U+FFEF should *only* be used as a byte order mark and/or signature.
(That is already ambiguous and trouble enough -- without tossing in
the orthogonal issue of the need for a non-breaking zero-width space.)


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:04 EDT