Tom Lane wrote:
Sam Mason <s...@samason.me.uk> writes:
I'd never heard of UTF-16 surrogate pairs before this discussion and
hence didn't realise that it's valid to have a surrogate pair in place
of a single code point. The docs say that <D800 DF02> corresponds to
U+10302, Python would appear to follow my intuitions in that:
ord(u'\uD800\uDF02')
results in an error instead of giving back 66306, as I'd expect. Is
this a bug in Python, my understanding, or something else?
I might be wrong, but I think surrogate pairs are expressly forbidden in
all representations other than UTF16/UCS2. We definitely forbid them
when validating UTF-8 strings --- that's per an RFC recommendation.
It sounds like Python is doing the same.
You mustn't encode the surrogate, but it's up to us how we allow people
to designate a given code point.
Frankly, I think we shouldn't provide for using surrogates at all. I
would prefer something like \uXXXX for BMP items and \UXXXXXXXX as the
straight 32bit designation of a higher codepoint.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
