On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 03:04:37PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > Sam Mason wrote: > >Are you sure that this handling of surrogates is correct? The best > >answer I've managed to find on the Unicode consortium's site is: > > > > http://unicode.org/faq/utf_bom.html#utf16-7 > > > >it says: > > > > They are invalid in interchange, but may be freely used internal to an > > implementation. > > It says that about non-characters, not about the use of surrogate pairs, > unless I am misreading it.
No, I think you're probably right and I was misreading it. I went back and forth several times to explicitly check I was interpreting this correctly and still failed to get it right. Not sure what I was thinking and sorry for the hassle Marko! I've already asked on the Unicode list about this (no response yet), but I have a feeling I'm getting worked up over nothing. -- Sam http://samason.me.uk/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
