RE: What does it mean to "not be a valid string in Unicode"?

From: Whistler, Ken <ken.whistler_at_sap.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2013 21:38:15 +0000

Philippe also said:

> ... Reserving "UTF-16" for what the stadnard discusses as a
> "16-bit string", except that it should still require UTF-16
> conformance (no unpaired surrogates and no non-characters) ...

For those following along, conformance to UTF-16 does *NOT* require "no non-characters". Noncharacters are perfectly valid in UTF-16.

--Ken
Received on Mon Jan 07 2013 - 15:40:13 CST

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Costello, Roger L.: "Are there Unicode processors?"
Previous message: Whistler, Ken: "RE: What does it mean to "not be a valid string in Unicode"?"
In reply to: Philippe Verdy: "Re: What does it mean to "not be a valid string in Unicode"?"

Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]
Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Jan 07 2013 - 15:40:14 CST