It seems that the broadening of the term "interchange" in this
corrigendum to mean "almost any type of processing imaginable," below,
is what caused the trouble. This is the decision that would need to be
reconsidered if the real intent of noncharacters is to be expressed.
I suspect everyone can agree on the edge cases, that noncharacters are
harmless in internal processing, but probably should not appear in
random text shipped around on the web.
> This is necessary for the effective use of noncharacters, because
> anytime a Unicode string crosses an API boundary, it is in effect
> being "interchanged". Furthermore, for distributed software, it is
> often very difficult to determine what constitutes an "internal"
> versus an "external" context for any particular software process.
-- Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, USA http://ewellic.org | @DougEwell _______________________________________________ Unicode mailing list Unicode_at_unicode.org http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicodeReceived on Mon Jun 02 2014 - 10:30:02 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Jun 02 2014 - 10:30:03 CDT