RE: validity of lone surrogates (was Re: Unicode surroga tes: just say no!)

From: Carl W. Brown (cbrown@xnetinc.com)
Date: Wed Jun 27 2001 - 11:57:33 EDT


Mark,

> Your are correct in that the text is not nearly as clear as it should be,
> and is open to different interpretations. My view of the status in Unicode
> 3.1 is represented on http://www.macchiato.com/utc/utf_comparison.htm.
> Corresponding computations are on
> http://www.macchiato.com/utc/utf_computations.htm.
>
> One of the goals for Unicode 4.0 is to clear up the text
> describing UTFs in
> particular, which may change some of the edge cases (isolates and/or
> irregulars).
I can't find D29:

        it strongly recommends isolates
                caveat: the text below D29 clearly says must, but that is not in D29
itself.

Why would you want isolates?

You then state:

        it allows irregulars to be interpreted, but not generated.

To me this would allow you to convert utf-8s to UTF-16 but expressly forbids
generating utf-8s.

Carl



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Jul 06 2001 - 00:17:19 EDT