> On 23 May 2017, at 18:45, Markus Scherer via Unicode <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 7:05 AM, Asmus Freytag via Unicode > <[email protected]> wrote: >> So, if the proposal for Unicode really was more of a "feels right" and not a >> "deviate at your peril" situation (or necessary escape hatch), then we are >> better off not making a RECOMMEDATION that goes against collective practice. > > I think the standard is quite clear about this: > > Although a UTF-8 conversion process is required to never consume well-formed > subsequences as part of its error handling for ill-formed subsequences, such > a process is not otherwise constrained in how it deals with any ill-formed > subsequence itself. An ill-formed subsequence consisting of more than one > code unit could be treated as a single error or as multiple errors.
Agreed. That paragraph is entirely clear. Kind regards, Alastair. -- http://alastairs-place.net
