RE: UTF-16 inside UTF-8

From: Jill Ramonsky ([email protected])
Date: Tue Nov 04 2003 - 10:20:23 EST

Next message: Jill Ramonsky: "UTF-16 inside UTF-8"

Previous message: Philippe Verdy: "[hebrew] Re: variation selectors for combining characters (was: Hebrew composition model, with cantillation marks)"
Next in thread: Doug Ewell: "Re: UTF-16 inside UTF-8"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

Thanks.
That's kinda what I thought, but I wasn't sure.

Jill

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 2:52 PM
> To: Jill Ramonsky
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: UTF-16 inside UTF-8
>
>
>
> Surrogate pairs are for UTF-16 only. For UTF-8 & UTF-32, surrogates
> (pairs or otherwise) are ill-formed code unit sequences, and
> conformant processes must treat them as erroneous.
>
> --deh!
>

Next message: Jill Ramonsky: "UTF-16 inside UTF-8"
Previous message: Philippe Verdy: "[hebrew] Re: variation selectors for combining characters (was: Hebrew composition model, with cantillation marks)"
Next in thread: Doug Ewell: "Re: UTF-16 inside UTF-8"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Nov 04 2003 - 11:08:40 EST