> 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