[r6rs-discuss] [Formal] Scheme should not be changed to be case
cowan at ccil.org
Thu Nov 16 13:20:01 EST 2006
Thomas Lord scripsit:
> Do you have any serious objections to such a change?
> I understand that you might personally find such a
> design unwise. You might even worry that such
> an implementation (if its non-standard output started
> to matter) could be "bad for Unicode" in some sense,
> because now there would be new de facto encoding
> forms. But are there any reasons to enforce such
> misgivings via the Scheme standard?
It would not be bad for Unicode as such; Unicode doesn't care. Bitter
experience (not mere misgivings) shows that it is very bad for the overall
ecology of documents to make it straightforward to deal in instances
that don't have any semantic meaning, and that other environments will
reject as not well-formed. The fact that other languages allow dealing
in loose surrogates, because they did not take them into account at the
right time, is no justification.
I am very firmly for the status quo.
That you can cover for the plentiful John Cowan
and often gaping errors, misconstruals, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
and disinformation in your posts cowan at ccil.org
through sheer volume -- that is another
misconception. --Mike to Peter
More information about the r6rs-discuss