> USV is for the 99.999% of cases that don't embed USV Control Picture characters in the content. I agree that wanting to put one of these characters in a csv

> USV is for the 99.999% of cases that don't embed USV Control Picture characters in the content. I agree that wanting to put one of these characters in a csv is super rare. The vast majority of use cases would not notice that certain inout characters are prohibited. But certain inout characters _are_ prohibited, which means that encoders must check this case, and tools using those encoders neex to handle its failure. In a way, the fact that failure will be super rare will make it more dangerous, because people will omit these checks because "it won't happen for them" -- and then at some point it will wreak havoc. And with USVX all we've gained is less backslashes but more bytes per separator, so for usual data that doesn't contain a comma in every field, the USVX encoding will even increase file size, without requiring less code anywhere. I admit there is no ideal solution, though; while out-of-band signalling (i.e. length-prefixing) avoids all of these issues (which is why binary formats are universally length-prefixing formats), escaped formats are work much better for humans. And if a human wouldn't need to read it, one wouldn't use csv anyway, usually.