From: Doug Ewell (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Jun 29 2009 - 20:37:29 CDT
Adam Twardoch <list dot adam at twardoch dot com> wrote:
>>> If you want to process *any arbitrary sequence of Unicode
>>> characters* as a string, then you may have problems with U+0000 --
>>> but that would have been true if you wanted to process any arbitrary
>>> sequence of bytes as an ASCII string.
>> In such a case, one usually uses U+FFFF, which is guaranteed not to
>> be a valid Unicode code point.
> Indeed, I think it is a much better idea than using U+0000. And is
> just as easy to remember ;)
I think the original poster's point was that he didn't know what his
input would look like, let alone have control over it.
-- Doug Ewell * Thornton, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14 http://www.ewellic.org http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages ˆ
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 29 2009 - 20:40:03 CDT