From: "Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> It's a pity that UTF-16 doesn't encode characters up to U+F, such
> that code points corresponding to lone surrogates can be encoded as
> pairs of surrogates.
Unfortunately, we would then be stuck with what happens when two such
surroga
27 Jun 2001 13:38:33 +0100, Gaute B Strokkenes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
> I would be indebted if any of the experts who hang out on the
> unicode list could sort out this confusion.
I would be glad if the resolution allowed UTF-8 and UTF-32 encoders and
decoders to not worry about surrogates a
Mark Davis wrote:
> Your are correct in that the text is not nearly as clear as it should be,
> and is open to different interpretations. My view of the status in Unicode
> 3.1 is represented on http://www.macchiato.com/utc/utf_comparison.htm.
> Corresponding computations are on
> http://www.macc
Mark,
> Your are correct in that the text is not nearly as clear as it should be,
> and is open to different interpretations. My view of the status in Unicode
> 3.1 is represented on http://www.macchiato.com/utc/utf_comparison.htm.
> Corresponding computations are on
> http://www.macchiato.com/ut
EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Martin v. Loewis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 05:38
Subject: Re: validity of lone surrogates (was Re: Unicode sur
On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> [earlier correspondents]
>>> Personally, I think that the codecs should report an error in the
>>> appropriate fashion when presented with a python unicode string
>>> which contains values that are not allowed, such as lone
>>> surrogates.
>>
>>
6 matches
Mail list logo
