On 08/06/2001 04:22:15 Kenneth Whistler wrote:
[...]
| I think the reason you are not following the argument that Doug and Peter
| have been presenting is that you are thinking in terms of a UTF-8s to
| UTF-16 converter, instead of thinking of the UTF's as they are defined
| in relation to scalar values. I.e.,
[lots of excellent stuff deleted]
A breath of fresh air. When are we going to get equivalent clarity in
the Unicode Standard?
[...]
| Personally, I think there are other conundrums in the last two
| examples, as applied to UTF-16, that would lead me to prefer
| restricting "Unicode scalar value" itself to non-surrogate
| code points for the purposes of the definition of the UTF's,
As was the case in the ISO/IEC 10646 definition of UTF-8, in amendment 2
to ISO/IEC 10646-1993. I don't have a copy of ISO/IEC 10646-2000, so I
don't know how that document defines UTF-8.
[...]
Misha
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual
sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be
the views of Reuters Ltd.
