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

You're right, and I stand corrected. I read Markus's post too quickly.

Mark Davis ☕ <mark at macchiato dot com> wrote:

>> 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.

--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, USA
http://ewellic.org | @DougEwell ­