Re: What does it mean to "not be a valid string in Unicode"?

From: Mark Davis ☕ <mark_at_macchiato.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2013 11:37:57 -0800

> But still non-conformant.

That's incorrect.

The point I was making above is that in order to say that something is
"non-conformant", you have to be very clear what it is "non-conformant" *TO*
.

> Also, we commonly read code points from 16-bit Unicode strings, and
> unpaired surrogates are returned as themselves and treated as such
> (e.g., in collation).

   - That *is* conformant for *Unicode 16-bit strings.*
   - That is *not* conformant for *UTF-16*.

There is an important difference.

Mark <https://plus.google.com/114199149796022210033>
*
*
*— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*
**

On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Doug Ewell <doug_at_ewellic.org> wrote:

> But still non-conformant.
Received on Mon Jan 07 2013 - 13:39:19 CST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Jan 07 2013 - 13:39:19 CST