On 08/06/2001 04:22:15 Kenneth Whistler wrote:
[...]
| I think the reason you are not following the argument that Doug and Peter
| have been presenting is that you are thinking in terms of a UTF-8s to
| UTF-16 converter, instead of thinking of the UTF's as they are defined
| in relation to scalar values. I.e.,
[lots of excellent stuff deleted]
A breath of fresh air. When are we going to get equivalent clarity in
the Unicode Standard?
[...]
| Personally, I think there are other conundrums in the last two
| examples, as applied to UTF-16, that would lead me to prefer
| restricting "Unicode scalar value" itself to non-surrogate
| code points for the purposes of the definition of the UTF's,
As was the case in the ISO/IEC 10646 definition of UTF-8, in amendment 2
to ISO/IEC 10646-1993. I don't have a copy of ISO/IEC 10646-2000, so I
don't know how that document defines UTF-8.
[...]
Misha
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual
sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be
the views of Reuters Ltd.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Jul 06 2001 - 00:17:18 EDT