"Steven R. Loomis" <email@example.com> wrote:
> What happened was that the sequence AD 63 61 73 was
> interpreted as U+E54E U+DC73..
Why? As an illegal UTF-8 sequence, it shouldn't be interpreted as
John Cowan's "utf" perl script (which carries the appropriate
disclaimers about no error checking) converts that sequence to U+D94E
U+DC73, which seems a bit more reasonable -- at least it's a complete
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:14 EDT