Martin v. Loewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems to be unclear to many, including myself, what exactly was
clarified with Unicode 3.1. Where exactly does it say that processing
a six-byte two-surrogates sequence as a single character is
non-conforming?
It's not non-conforming, it's
If you still find the definitions and discussion in the technical report
to be unclear, then the Unicode editorial committee would undoubtedly like
to hear about it.
There is no question that there are still things that are unclear and
things that are anachronistic in the definitions. I have
2 matches
Mail list logo
