-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 3/23/2015 12:21 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > The difference is that characters above U+FFFF are an error in > UCS-2 but uses surrogates in UTF-16. I believe falling back to > surrogates is the right thing to do, even if it is not 100% spec > compliant.
If everyone else is expecting UCS-2 and we use UTF-16 then won't they blow up when we emit a double word character? Maybe someone should find such a character and see if other tools, i.e. Windows and MacOSX, correctly interpret the double word character. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVEE2PAAoJENRVrw2cjl5RYVAIAJ1hYAsWjs0IHjz/Dr+Z20Ji pRHS1Hz00kQ5OYLhvGnWx71s10qIBkCzqpqd+TdMy1xitbxc1vzmDYq7Cys/fg75 Umo8kDh8ZttMPQoKWCh1leH+IXAIoMKfP5+nhMG2HIWVXK8CiTnmRJBwBQwMmv8D euJpufKUUQwpQcZVWXuVQerNIxzmlkr/WsdJJ6XKoGbjLfubiQHTkdz8Hi+3zNvJ uUEZDwe8HW0PQ5TDo9G/XxMvnVjastPK7btySC41E8ygcJurQUMJD90X6rUhPGh1 SeyKpnfTwZr7xT4qoHeFVaSZ8cAYPGtxGdRbvyR69aHqhUjoCezC4thm9zs3Yv8= =gKzd -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
