Tue, 3 Jul 2001 01:50:56 -0700, Michael (michka) Kaplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
>> It's a pity that UTF-16 doesn't encode characters up to U+F, such
>> that code points corresponding to lone surrogates can be encoded as
>> pairs of surrogates.
>
> Unfortunately, we would then be stuck wit
>If you still find the definitions and discussion in the technical report
>to be unclear, then the Unicode editorial committee would undoubtedly like
>to hear about it.
There is no question that there are still things that are unclear and
things that are anachronistic in the definitions. I have
Martin v. Loewis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It seems to be unclear to many, including myself, what exactly was
> clarified with Unicode 3.1. Where exactly does it say that processing
> a six-byte two-surrogates sequence as a single character is
> non-conforming?
It's not non-conforming, it's
[I'm CC-ing the unicode list again because I'm doing some fairly
sophisticated interpretation of the Unicode conformance requirements
below and I'd like to have someone with more experience with this
check my reasoning.]
On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> This is wrong. It is a bu
4 matches
Mail list logo
