> Hm, but isn't there a way to encode a NUL that doesn't produce a NUL? > In some variant? UTF-8 has a "no \u0000 in, no NUL out" property by design (it's what makes UTF-8 uniquely well-suited to processing by crufty old 8-bit C string library routines, and that was a goal of the encoding scheme). If people are really <wink> wondering whether Barry has discovered an actual bug, don't: take his example and decode it back to Unicode. You won't get what you started with in current CVS (or at least Barry didn't when I watched him do it). That's an easier proof than indirectly wondering about UTF-8 properties.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4