Re: Unicode 4.0 BETA available for review

From: Yung-Fong Tang (
Date: Wed Feb 26 2003 - 18:42:06 EST

  • Next message: Yung-Fong Tang: "Re: please review the paper for me"

    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