That you. At least I know I'm still borderline and havent gone completely insane. It was changed in RFC 3629
It should probably be added in ext/libxml as libxml 2.6.13 (and it looks like .12 as well) are broken badly here when a bug fix was done in the function. Previous versions have a bug with the 2 byte check (certain invalid strings are returned as valid). Dmitry's code is almost exactly as what's in libxml cvs for the function now so the code should be at least used for <= 2.6.13. Rob ----- Original Message ----- From: Derick Rethans > > I should make a decision. > > Can anybody point me to some utf-8 specification document? > > http://www.unicode.org/faq/utf_bom.html#37 > http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode4.0.0/ch03.pdf > section 3.9, which proves that Rob is right and I was wrong for using > UTF-8 as Unicode encoding standard. > > (Though theoretically you could use UTF8 for 4 byte encodings up to 6 > bytes). > > Besides this, I do no think that we should introduce copied versions > into our extensions, but just block it from being used with a configure > check for this specific libxml2 version. This also should not be done on > an extension level, but generally for PHP. (Or in case that we really > want to add a copied (+fixed) function, we should do that in ext/libxml > so that all extensions can make use of this. -- PHP CVS Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
