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

From: Jonathan Coxhead via Unicode <>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 23:10:09 -0700

On 18/05/2017 1:58 am, Alastair Houghton via Unicode wrote:
> On 18 May 2017, at 07:18, Henri Sivonen via Unicode <> wrote:
>> the decision complicates U+FFFD generation when validating UTF-8 by state machine.
> It *really* doesn’t. Even if you’re hell bent on using a pure state machine approach, you need to add maybe two additional error states (two-trailing-bytes-to-eat-then-fffd and one-trailing-byte-to-eat-then-fffd) on top of the states you already have. The implementation complexity argument is a *total* red herring.

    Heh. A state machine with N+2 states is, /a fortiori/, more complex
than one with N states. So I think your argument is self-contradictory.
> Alastair.
Received on Tue May 23 2017 - 01:10:19 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Tue May 23 2017 - 01:10:20 CDT