> But still non-conformant. That's incorrect.
The point I was making above is that in order to say that something is "non-conformant", you have to be very clear what it is "non-conformant" *TO* . > Also, we commonly read code points from 16-bit Unicode strings, and > unpaired surrogates are returned as themselves and treated as such > (e.g., in collation). - That *is* conformant for *Unicode 16-bit strings.* - That is *not* conformant for *UTF-16*. There is an important difference. Mark <https://plus.google.com/114199149796022210033> * * *— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —* ** On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Doug Ewell <d...@ewellic.org> wrote: > But still non-conformant.
