On 08/28/2013 06:52 PM, Asmus Freytag wrote:
On 8/28/2013 5:19 PM, Doug Ewell wrote:
Actually 0xC2, according to the rules of UTF-8.
Hmm. What you are referring to is that 0xC0 and 0xC1 don't occur because
of the requirement for minimal length encoding. However, a check for
>=0xC0 will give the correct result for backing up, assuming the data
is valid UTf-8 (or at least locally valid).
In terms of boundary determination, would you take violating the rule
about minimal length encoding as evidence for corrupted data, or would
you first detect the boundary, then decide that a sequence starting with
0xC0 is in violation?
A./
I have code that does the latter, and it works well. But this may be
colored by the fact that there was a design constraint to accept
overlongs if the caller of the parsing subroutine sets a flag to allow them.
