Re: Code point vs. scalar value

From: Stephan Stiller <>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 08:54:51 -0700

On 9/18/2013 2:42 AM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
> There are "scalar values" used in so many other unrelated domains [...]
There is no risk for confusion with vectors or complex numbers or reals
or whatnot.

On 9/18/2013 8:34 AM, Asmus Freytag wrote:
> I concur. Codepoint is the accepted way of referring to the units
> these algorithms operate on. Further, the input to an algorithm
> includes erroneous input. Unpaired surrogates do exist in real data,
> and will have to be dealt with by the error-handling part of any real
> implementation of an algorithm.
You haven't answered my questions. I want to know why the Glossary
claims that surrogate code points are "[r]eserved for use by UTF-16".
Remind me real quick, in what way does a function "use" the input values
that it's not defined on? And what does this have to do with UTF-16?

> ( Aside: "Scalar value" as used in Unicode essentially denotes a
> sub-range of valid code poin values, but many alogorithms and
> implementations have their own subranges for various purposes, yet
> don't all coin a comparable term to them.)
But "scalar value" happens to be defined, for precisely the appropriate
purpose. But the point is the paragraph above.

Received on Wed Sep 18 2013 - 10:58:17 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed Sep 18 2013 - 10:58:18 CDT