> The proposal is ambiguous about whether to do the same thing for five and six-byte sequences whose bit pattern is not defined as existing in Unicode but was d

> The proposal is ambiguous about whether to do the same thing for five and six-byte sequences whose bit pattern is not defined as existing in Unicode but was defined in now-obsolete RFCs for UTF-8 [...] If five and six-byte sequences are treated according to the logic of the newly-accepted proposal, the newly-accepted proposal matches the behavior of ICU. Regarding 5- and 6-byte sequences, perhaps the Unicode Consortium in their ambiguity and the ICU in its implementation are allowing for their possible return to Unicode. One day in the far-off future when UTF-16 finally dies, it will be feasible to increase the codepoint repetoire back up from 1 million to 2 billion, which is easy to implement in both UTF-8 and UTF-16.