Re: Feedback on the proposal to change U+FFFD generation when decoding ill-formed UTF-8

From: Alastair Houghton via Unicode <>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 08:13:45 +0100

On 15 May 2017, at 23:16, Shawn Steele via Unicode <> wrote:
> I’m not sure how the discussion of “which is better” relates to the discussion of ill-formed UTF-8 at all.

It doesn’t, which is a point I made in my original reply to Henry. The only reason I answered his anti-UTF-16 rant at all was to point out that some of us don’t think UTF-16 is a mistake, and in fact can see various benefits (*particularly* as an in-memory representation).

> And to the last, saying “you cannot process UTF-16 without handling surrogates” seems to me to be the equivalent of saying “you cannot process UTF-8 without handling lead & trail bytes”. That’s how the respective encodings work.


Kind regards,


Received on Tue May 16 2017 - 02:13:58 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Tue May 16 2017 - 02:13:58 CDT