* Karl Williamson <[email protected]> [2015-10-29T01:52:10] > As to why its sized to allow a 72-byte code point, I don't know. It makes > some sense getting to 64; to accommodate 64-bit systems would take 12 UTF-8 > bytes instead of 13. The payload is doubled, one start plus 12 data, so > that may have some bearing, but what I don't know. Doing so, though, does > mean that there are fewer overlongs than otherwise. But if that is a > consideration they cared about or even thought about, I don't know. > > Changing things now introduces backwards compatibility issues. However, I > don't think this should be of real concern. I don't think such high code > points are used very much at all, and there is a default-off warning raised > whenever outputting a code point above Unicode. There could for a time be a > stronger, default-on, warning raised for these very large code points.
I don't have any feelings about this. Unless we have any idea of anything we'd get out of a new warning, I'm not crazy about adding one. -- rjbs
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
