On 12/20/2016 10:33 AM, Markus Scherer wrote:
Yes. However, some of the discussion in this thread is due to details
that were not spelled out in the PRI. There is basically a 2a and a
2b, while the examples in PRI #121 work the same in both variants.
I wasn't intending to argue the case
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 8:59 AM, Ken Whistler wrote:
> You found the resulting text in TUS 9.0, p. 126 - 129. The origin of the
> text there about best practices for using U+FFFD was the discussion and
> resolution of PRI #121 in August, 2008:
>
>
Doug,
On 12/19/2016 6:08 PM, Doug Ewell wrote:
I thought there was a corrigendum or other, comparatively recent
addition to the Standard that spelled out how replacement characters
are supposed to be substituted for invalid code unit sequences --
something about detecting maximally long
On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 20:54:31 -0700
Doug Ewell wrote:
> There isn't much to be gained by collapsing the bad bytes to a single
> replacement character. However, doing so does remove the information
> about how many bytes were invalid and that may have value to a user
> in
On 2016/12/20 11:35, Tex Texin wrote:
Shawn,
Ok, but that begs the questions of what to do...
"All bets are off" is not instructive.
Well, it may be instructive in that its difficult to get software to
decide what happened. A human may be in a better position to analyze the
error and the
On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 3:04 PM, Karl Williamson
wrote:
> It seems counterintuitive to me that the two byte sequence C0 80 should be
> replaced by 2 replacement characters under best practices, or that E0 80 80
> should also be replaced by 2. Each sequence was legal in
-
From: Shawn Steele [mailto:shawn.ste...@microsoft.com]
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016 5:41 PM
To: Tex Texin; 'Doug Ewell'; 'Unicode Mailing List'
Cc: 'Karl Williamson'
Subject: RE: Best practices for replacing UTF-8 overlongs
IMO, bad bytes == corruption. At that point all bets are o
: 'Karl Williamson' <pub...@khwilliamson.com> Subject: RE: Best practices for
replacing UTF-8 overlongs
If there is a short sequence of invalid bytes presumed to be one character,
then one vs several replacement characters may not matter. But if it were a
longer sequence that might hav
of the document is suspect.
tex
-Original Message-
From: Unicode [mailto:unicode-boun...@unicode.org] On Behalf Of Shawn Steele
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016 4:26 PM
To: Doug Ewell; Unicode Mailing List
Cc: Karl Williamson
Subject: RE: Best practices for replacing UTF-8 overlongs
IMO
On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 16:04:06 -0700
Karl Williamson wrote:
> What are the advantages to replacing them by multiple characters
Presumably it just provides more pain for those who code using UTF-8 as
opposed to UTF-16, just like the *former* requirements to be able to be
On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 3:04 PM, Karl Williamson
wrote:
> It seems counterintuitive to me that the two byte sequence C0 80 should be
> replaced by 2 replacement characters under best practices, or that E0 80 80
> should also be replaced by 2. Each sequence was legal in
Karl Williamson wrote:
> It seems counterintuitive to me that the two byte sequence C0 80
> should be replaced by 2 replacement characters under best practices,
> or that E0 80 80 should also be replaced by 2. Each sequence was legal
> in early Unicode versions,
This is overstated at best.
It seems counterintuitive to me that the two byte sequence C0 80 should
be replaced by 2 replacement characters under best practices, or that E0
80 80 should also be replaced by 2. Each sequence was legal in early
Unicode versions, and it seems that it would be best to treat them as
each a
13 matches
Mail list logo