Re: [I18ndir] [art] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-bray-unichars-06.txt

[Asmus Freytag <[e-mail]>]

I think I'm with Tim here. Once you are in scope of a document that only 
describes subsets of the code points, this kind of explanation (at best) 
belongs in the section where the scope of the document is defined.

I would argue that at the end of 1. Introduction would be a good place 
to mention what this document does *not* address.

"This document does not address protocols where every single Unicode 
code point must be supported for specific reasons, or protocols and data 
formats that need to further subset the valid code points based on 
criteria different from the ones presented here."

I realize, this language doesn't give much detail, but the important 
point is that makes explicit that omission of other types of subsets is 
deliberate, and that you do need to look elsewhere in some cases.

In a way, just adding that explicitly also prevents abuse of the 
document by people making false claims that it is intended to prevent 
you from dealing with the full set or restricted sets, should you have 
reasonable requirements.

A./

On 9/25/2023 9:20 PM, Tim Bray wrote:
> On Sep 25, 2023 at 6:59:26 PM, Rob Sayre <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> The aim here is to point out that the Web (and Java, and Windows) can 
>> accommodate ill-formed Unicode. Is it possible to transmit any 
>> Windows path name via conforming JSON in UTF-8? Yes. Is it a good 
>> idea to naively design that into a protocol? No. But you might have 
>> to accept these things to be sufficiently compatible with the Web.
>
> If you want that behavior I guess you should just accept a repertoire 
> of code points as JSON does, no?  In which case nothing in this 
> document is relevant.