I agree with everything Ned said, this is a non-problem.
On Dec 23, 2005, at 10:13 AM, Ned Freed wrote:
(Unicode
lacks a no-op, a meaningless octet, one that could be added or
removed without
causing any change to the meaning of the text).
NBSP is used for this purpose.
I think actually U+FEFF ZERO WIDTH NO-BREAK SPACE is appropriate in
many situations. Yes, I know it's also a BOM.
The reason many of our standards documents refer to ISO 10646 is
that at one
time there was concern that Unicode wasn't sufficiently stable, and
it was felt
that reference to the ISO document would offer some protection against
capricious change. I think in retrospect this concern has been
shown to be
unwarranted, and all things being equal I would prefer to see
references to the
more readily available Unicode materials. (Given the wide
deployment of Unicode
now there is effectively no chance of a major change along the
lines of the
Hangul reshuffle between V1 and V2.)
Yes. It's intellectually satisfying that 10646 still exists, but for
al practical purposes, Unicode is plenty stable enough, and widely
accessible. -Tim
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf