On 4/16/09, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> 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.
The point here is that Python/Java/C# allow them for escaping non-BMP unicode values, irrespective of their interal encoding. -- marko -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
