2015-05-09 6:37 GMT+02:00 Markus Scherer <[email protected]>: > On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 9:13 PM, Philippe Verdy <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 2015-05-09 5:13 GMT+02:00 Richard Wordingham < >> [email protected]>: >> >>> I can't think of a practical use for the specific concepts of Unicode >>> 8-bit, 16-bit and 32-bit strings. Unicode 16-bit strings are >>> essentially the same as 16-bit strings, and Unicode 32-bit strings are >>> UTF-32 strings. 'Unicode 8-bit string' strikes me as an exercise in >>> pedantry; there are more useful categories of 8-bit strings that are >>> not UTF-8 strings. >>> >> >> And here you're wrong: a 16-bit string is just a sequence of arbitrary >> 16-bit code units, but an Unicode string (whatever the size of its code >> units) adds restrictions for validity (the only restriction being in fact >> that surrogates (when present in 16-bit strings, i.e. UTF-16) must be >> paired, and in 32-bit (UTF-32) and 8-bit (UTF-8) strings, surrogates are >> forbidden. >> > > No, Richard had it right. See for example definition D82 "Unicode 16-bit > string" in the standard. (Section 3.9 Unicode Encoding Forms, > http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode7.0.0/ch03.pdf) >
I was right, D82 refers to "UTF-16", which implies the restriction of validity, i.e. NO isolated/unpaired surrogates,(but no exclusion of non-characters). I was right, You and Richard were wrong.
