From: Yung-Fong Tang (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Feb 26 2003 - 18:42:06 EST
Kenneth Whistler wrote:
>If you read through those definitions from Unicode 4.0 carefully,
>you will see that UTF-8 representing a noncharacter is perfectly
>valid, but UTF-8 representing an unpaired surrogate code point
>is ill-formed (and therefore disallowed).
I see a hole here. How about UTF-8 representing a paired of surrogate
code point with two 3 octets sequence instead of an one octets UTF-8
sequence? It should be ill-formed since it is non-shortest form also,
right? But we really need to watch out the language used there so we
won't create new problem. I DO NOT want people think one 3 otects of
UTF-8 surrogate low or high is ill-formed but one 3 octets of UTF-8
surrogate high followed by a one 3 octets of UTF-8 surrogate low is legal.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 26 2003 - 19:29:56 EST