SGTM, Thanks for pushing on this one. One comment: although this is a proposed change to non-normative spec text, it appears that several implementations already implement the original (also non-normative) recommendation. Would it be worthwhile to propose the reversal and also mark the section as normative?
--Jet On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 2:11 AM, Henri Sivonen <hsivo...@hsivonen.fi> wrote: > (If you don't care about the details of UTF-8 error handling, it's > safe to stop reading.) > > In reference to https://hsivonen.fi/broken-utf-8/ , I think it would > be appropriate to submit that post to the Unicode Consortium with a > cover note asking the Unicode Technical Committee to revert their > decision to change the preferred UTF-8 error handling for Unicode 11 > and to retract the action item to draft corresponding new text for > Unicode 11 for reasons given in the post. > > I think it would be preferable to do this via Mozilla's liaison > membership of the Unicode Consortium rather than me doing it as a > random member of the public, because submission via Mozilla's liaison > membership allows for visibility into the process and opportunity for > follow-up whereas if I do it on my own, it's basically a matter of > dropping a note into a one-way black box. (It seems that this kind of > thing is exactly what Mozilla's liaison membership is for.) > > However, submitting via Mozilla's liaison membership raises the > question of whether the submission would properly represent a Mozilla > consensus. I estimate this to be noncontroversial, because deliberate > effort has been expended to make the Mozilla-affiliated > implementations that I am aware of (uconv, encoding_rs and the Rust > standard library) behave according to the pre-Unicode 11 version of > the guidance either directly by looking at the Unicode Standard or by > the way of implementing the WHATWG Encoding Standard, which elevates > the pre-Unicode 11 preferred approach into a requirement. > > If I have mis-guessed that the above-contemplated submission should be > non-controversial from the Mozilla perspective and you believe that > the above-contemplated submission should not be made via Mozilla's > liaison membership, please let me know. > > (My understanding is that a reversal of the decision is quite > possible, but actually making the above-contemplated submission is a > process prerequisite for a reversal to take place.) > > -- > Henri Sivonen > hsivo...@hsivonen.fi > https://hsivonen.fi/ > _______________________________________________ > dev-platform mailing list > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
