-On [20080703 19:21], Adam Olsen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 7:57 AM, M.-A. Lemburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Please remember that lone surrogate pair code points are perfectly >> valid Unicode code points, nevertheless. Just as a lone combining >> code point is valid on its own. > >That is a big part of these problems. For all practical purposes, a >surrogate is like a UTF-8 code unit, and must be handled the same way, >so why the heck do they confuse everybody by saying "oh, it's a code >point too!"?
Because surrogate code points are not Unicode scalar values, isolated UTF-16 code units in the range 0xd800-0xdfff are ill-formed. (D91 from Unicode 5.0/5.1, section 3.9) So, no, it is not a code point too. -- Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <asmodai(-at-)in-nomine.org> / asmodai イェルーン ラウフロック ヴァン デル ウェルヴェン http://www.in-nomine.org/ | http://www.rangaku.org/ | GPG: 2EAC625B Als men blijft geloven kan de zwaarste steen niet zinken... _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
