Philippe VERDY wrote:
> (In fact I also think that mapping invalid sequences to U+FFFD is also
> an error, because U+FFFD is valid, and the presence of the encoding
> error in the source is lost, and will not throw exceptions in further
> processings of the remapped text, unless the application c
Doug Ewell scripsit:
> "When faced with [an] ill-formed code unit sequence while transforming
> or interpreting text, a conformant process must treat the first code
> unit... as an illegally terminated code unit sequence -- for example, by
> signaling an error, filtering the code unit out, or repr
Title: RE: RE: RE: Roundtripping in Unicode
Philippe VERDY wrote:
> I don't think I miss the point. My suggested approach to
> perform roundtrip conversions between UTF's while keeping all
> invalid sequences as invalid (for the standard UTFs), is much
> less risky t
Lars Kristan wrote:> What I was talking about in the paragraph in question is what happens if you want to take unassigned codepoints and give them a new status.
You don't need to do that. No Unicode application must assign semantics to unassigned codepoints.
If a source sequence is invalid, and you
> From : "Lars Kristan"
> Philippe VERDY wrote:
> > If a source sequence is invalid, and you want to preserve it,
> > then this sequence must remain invalid if you change its encoding.
> > So there's no need for Unicode to assign valid code points
> > for invalid source data.
> Using invalid
Title: RE: RE: Roundtripping in Unicode
Philippe VERDY wrote:
> If a source sequence is invalid, and you want to preserve it,
> then this sequence must remain invalid if you change its encoding.
> So there's no need for Unicode to assign valid code points
> for invalid s
6 matches
Mail list logo
