On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Doug Ewell <d...@ewellic.org> wrote: > I'm probably missing something here, but I don't agree that it's OK for a > consumer of UTF-16 to accept an unpaired surrogate without throwing an > error, or converting it to U+FFFD, or otherwise raising a fuss. >
Various degrees of "fuss", including subsitution with U+FFFD or similar, are perfectly normal options for error handling. markus
