On Sat, 27 Apr 2019 at 15:21, Tom Honermann <tom_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> On 4/27/19 6:28 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> > I'm happy to see that so far there has not been opposition to the core
> > point on my write-up: Not adding new features for non-UTF execution
> > encodings. With that, let's talk about the details.
>
> I see no need to take a strong stance against adding such new features.
> If there is consensus that a feature is useful (at least to some subset
> of users), implementors are not opposed, and the feature won't
> complicate further language evolution, then I see no reason to be
> opposed to it. There are, and will be for a long time to come, programs
> that do not require Unicode and that need to operate in non-Unicode
> environments. We don't need to make them a priority, but we don't need
> to stand in their way either.

I do think Henri's concerns about supporting non-UTF encodings are
valid; there's questionable
bang-for-buck in doing so, and we're not exactly removing something
users of such encodings had,
and catering to those encodings is certainly not free and probably not cheap.
There is some value in possibly providing such users with migration
paths to UTF encodings, though.