The "SafeUTF8Character" ABNF definition in these documents includes the 5-byte and 6-byte encoding that draft-yergeau-rfc2279bis seems to deprecate by not even mentioning. The ABNF in draft-yergeau-rfc2279bis is also more specific, rejecting some invalid UTF-8 sequences that this document would accept. One possible solution is to change the definition of SafeUTF8Character from SafeUTF8Character = %x00-21 / %x23-7F / ; ASCII minus dquote dquote dquote / ; escaped double quote %xC0-DF %x80-BF / ; 2 byte UTF8 character %xE0-EF 2(%x80-BF) / ; 3 byte UTF8 character %xF0-F7 3(%x80-BF) / ; 4 byte UTF8 character %xF8-FB 4(%x80-BF) / ; 5 byte UTF8 character %xFC-FD 5(%x80-BF) ; 6 byte UTF8 character to SafeUTF8Character = %x00-21 / %x23-7F / ; ASCII minus dquote dquote dquote / ; escaped double quote UTF8-2 / ; 2 byte UTF8 character UTF8-3 / ; 3 byte UTF8 character UTF8-4 ; 4 byte UTF8 character and reference <UTF8-2>, <UTF8-3> and <UTF8-4> from rfc2279bis. Other solutions include copying the ABNF from rfc2279bis, or not worrying about the overgenerosity of this ABNF and just deleting the 5 and 6 byte versions. (Maybe we talked about this when 2279bis happened, but I must have forgotten already -- why was it OK to delete the 5 and 6 byte versions? Will there never be UCS characters larger than U+10FFFF? Should this change be mentioned in 2279bis in a "changes since 2279 section"? Am I attempting to retroactively apply a DISCUSS on a document? Will the questions never end?) Bill