Re: Roundtripping Solved

From: Arcane Jill (
Date: Thu Dec 16 2004 - 02:02:51 CST

  • Next message: Arcane Jill: "RE: Roundtripping Solved"

    It's just an escape sequence - like prefixing a character with backslash
    when inside a string constant. Does that make it non-conformant? Is the
    common practice of replacing quote with backslash-quote in string constants
    non-conformant, because backslash isn't a PUA character? If so, I stand
    suitably chastised, but if not, there is nothing supernatural about using
    magic-numbers, signature-bytes, etc., to identify an escape sequence. I
    simply chose a string longer than "\" (and therefore less likely to occur by

    But in hindsight I can see some logic in what you say. In order to be
    acceptable to non escape-aware processes, any escape-identifier-sequence
    should at the very least not be defective (e.g. never a control character
    followed by a combining character), and I confess I didn't check that.

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Doug Ewell []
    Sent: 15 December 2004 16:28
    To: Unicode Mailing List
    Cc: Arcane Jill
    Subject: Re: Roundtripping Solved

    Of course, Jill's scheme uses non-private-use Unicode scalar values to
    achieve what is essentially a private-use function, so this is still
    non-conformant. (A similar scheme that only used code points from the
    Plane 0, Plane 15, and Plane 16 PUAs would be fine.) But I gather that
    Lars isn't too worried about being non-conformant, or we wouldn't be
    having this thread.

    -Doug Ewell
    Fullerton, California

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Dec 16 2004 - 02:06:06 CST