Re: utf-8 != latin-1

[Doug Ewell]

"Steven R. Loomis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> What happened was that the sequence  AD 63 61 73 was
> interpreted as U+E54E U+DC73.. 

Why?  As an illegal UTF-8 sequence, it shouldn't be interpreted as
anything.

John Cowan's "utf" perl script (which carries the appropriate
disclaimers about no error checking) converts that sequence to U+D94E
U+DC73, which seems a bit more reasonable -- at least it's a complete
surrogate pair.

-Doug Ewell
 Fullerton, California