-On [20080703 19:21], Adam Olsen (rhamph at gmail.com) wrote: >On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 7:57 AM, M.-A. Lemburg <mal at egenix.com> wrote: >> Please remember that lone surrogate pair code points are perfectly >> valid Unicode code points, nevertheless. Just as a lone combining >> code point is valid on its own. > >That is a big part of these problems. For all practical purposes, a >surrogate is like a UTF-8 code unit, and must be handled the same way, >so why the heck do they confuse everybody by saying "oh, it's a code >point too!"? Because surrogate code points are not Unicode scalar values, isolated UTF-16 code units in the range 0xd800-0xdfff are ill-formed. (D91 from Unicode 5.0/5.1, section 3.9) So, no, it is not a code point too. -- Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <asmodai(-at-)in-nomine.org> / asmodai イェルーン ラウフロック ヴァン デル ウェルヴェン http://www.in-nomine.org/ | http://www.rangaku.org/ | GPG: 2EAC625B Als men blijft geloven kan de zwaarste steen niet zinken...
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