You're right, and I stand corrected. I read Markus's post too quickly. Mark Davis ☕ <mark at macchiato dot com> wrote:
>> But still non-conformant. > > That's incorrect. > > The point I was making above is that in order to say that something is > "non-conformant", you have to be very clear what it is "non-conformant" TO. > >> Also, we commonly read code points from 16-bit Unicode strings, and >> unpaired surrogates are returned as themselves and treated as such >> (e.g., in collation). > > + That is conformant for Unicode 16-bit strings. > > + That is not conformant for UTF-16. > > There is an important difference. -- Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, USA http://ewellic.org | @DougEwell
