Re: UDF & dstring

2017-06-22 Thread Pali Rohár
On Wednesday 14 June 2017 11:46:14 Jan Kara wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun 11-06-17 17:10:02, Pali Rohár wrote: > > 2.1.3 Dstrings > > > > The ECMA 167 standard, as well as this document, has normally > > defined byte positions relative to 0. In section 7.2.12 of ECMA > > 167, dstrings are defined in

Re: UDF & dstring

2017-06-22 Thread Pali Rohár
On Wednesday 14 June 2017 11:46:14 Jan Kara wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun 11-06-17 17:10:02, Pali Rohár wrote: > > 2.1.3 Dstrings > > > > The ECMA 167 standard, as well as this document, has normally > > defined byte positions relative to 0. In section 7.2.12 of ECMA > > 167, dstrings are defined in

Re: UDF & dstring

2017-06-14 Thread Jan Kara
Hi, On Sun 11-06-17 17:10:02, Pali Rohár wrote: > 2.1.3 Dstrings > > The ECMA 167 standard, as well as this document, has normally defined > byte positions relative to 0. In section 7.2.12 of ECMA 167, dstrings > are defined in terms of being relative to 1. Since this offers an > opportunity

Re: UDF & dstring

2017-06-14 Thread Jan Kara
Hi, On Sun 11-06-17 17:10:02, Pali Rohár wrote: > 2.1.3 Dstrings > > The ECMA 167 standard, as well as this document, has normally defined > byte positions relative to 0. In section 7.2.12 of ECMA 167, dstrings > are defined in terms of being relative to 1. Since this offers an > opportunity

UDF & dstring

2017-06-11 Thread Pali Rohár
Hi! I read UDF specification again I found another cryptic part: = 2.1.3 Dstrings The ECMA 167 standard, as well as this document, has normally defined byte positions relative to 0. In section 7.2.12 of ECMA 167, dstrings are defined in terms of being relative to 1. Since this offers an

UDF & dstring

2017-06-11 Thread Pali Rohár
Hi! I read UDF specification again I found another cryptic part: = 2.1.3 Dstrings The ECMA 167 standard, as well as this document, has normally defined byte positions relative to 0. In section 7.2.12 of ECMA 167, dstrings are defined in terms of being relative to 1. Since this offers an