On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 16:35:42 GMT, Naoto Sato <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I think we will need another issue to address the other uses of "unpaired >> surrogate" to "isolated surrogate code unit" elsewhere. > > FWIW, the Unicode FAQ uses the term "unpaired surrogate" > (https://unicode.org/faq/utf_bom.html), so I'm not particularly keen on > replacing it. That said, I do think we should be consistent in the > terminology we use throughout the document. https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2009/09414-n3716.pdf > JP.6 (Technical): On page 16, 4.58, Unpaired surrogate code unit >The term "Unpaired surrogate code unit" substituting "RC-element" in the >previous editions seems too verbose. Some shorter words, e.g., just "unpaired >surrogate", is better. > Not accepted > Strictly speaking “Unpaired surrogate code unit‟ is replacing “Unpaired > RC-element”. <mark>The term ‘surrogate’ by itself is ambiguous because it can > either represent a pair of code units as in ‘surrogate pair’ or a single code > unit when it is unpaired.</mark> Therefore the definition as stated in the CD > stays. https://www.unicode.org/reports/tr10/tr10-11.html > unpaired surrogates (code points with the > [General_Category](http://www.unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/UnicodeData.html) > property Cs) - "surrogate" as noun → may be confusing with surrogate pairs or surrogate code points - "surrogate code unit" → may be too long Both have own pros and cons. They should be noted in a newly created issue. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26461#discussion_r3788696375
