Re: [I18ndir] [art] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-bray-unichars-04.txt

[Steffen Nurpmeso <[e-mail]>]

Hello.

Tim Bray wrote in
 <CAHBU6ivzUV947N+n7AoYkCFT3ZfaLobCQ4fBXw3dvkqTT=[e-mail]>:
 | Hello again.  This draft corrects errors pointed out on these mailing
 |lists (thanks!) and goes to some length to address the arguments that
 |mentioning the All-Code-Points option is toxic, and that the definition of
 |UTF-8 excludes the possibility of surrogates. It relies more strongly on
 |the discussions in RFC 9413 (which BTW I hadn’t read except in an early
 |draft - I recommend to everyone, it’s really good).
 |
 |Comments are specifically requested about the desirability of advancing

That not, but one, and only as a remark for the interested:

  5.  Dealing With Problematic Code Points

     Noncharacters and legacy controls are unlikely to cause software
     failures, but they cannot usefully be displayed to humans, and can be
     used in attacks based on misleading human readers of text that
     display them.  [TR36]

For the purpose of "usefully displaying to humans" Unicode has the
dedicated code points U+2400 "SYMBOL FOR NULL" - U+2421 "SYMBOL
FOR DELETE", plus U+2424 - U+2426.

  6.  Restricting Character Repertoires
  ...
   It is unlikely that anyone specifying a new data format would choose
   to allow the Unicode Code Points character repertoire.

As a non-native english speaker i would think of "full" or
"complete" repertoire's?

Thank you very much!  I think the document is a good and helpful
read, especially with TR36 and the RFC 9413 that i did not have
yet!  (My personal fun is banging against that legacy C0 etc.)

A nice weekend i wish, and sorry for possibly to rude speech.

--steffen
|
|Der Kragenbaer,                The moon bear,
|der holt sich munter           he cheerfully and one by one
|einen nach dem anderen runter  wa.ks himself off
|(By Robert Gernhardt)