Yes, because surrogate "code units" are those used by UTF-16 for which a standard behavior is formally defined.
But there are still many other encodings than standard UTF-16, which uses those code points (don't forget that not all abstract characters are encoded in the UCS, and surrogates are considered abstract characters in some non-standard encodings, which assign them their OWN scalar values). Don't think that these code points are not used, they are just not interoperable for working *only* with plain-text, but plain-text is not the only kind of data used in software or even within interoperable protocols and documents. All those other uses exist and frequently have their own standards, but they are simply out of scope of the UCS (and its ISO/IEC/Unicode standards). I'de sayf that code points are the necessary extension that allows the Unicode standard to be integrable within other standards or applications. Also please don't use the terms "scalar value" alone. We are really speaking about "Unicode scalar values" or "scalar value character property" (as defined in TUS for all the standard UTF's), or "UCS scalar values" (thinking in terms of ISO 10646 and the equivalent RFCs published by ISO and IETF to define the same UTF's). The terms "code point" has also been historically used since long in ISO 10646 (even before aligning the ISO and Unicode standards) and at that time there were many more standard "code points" than today. There are "scalar values" used in so many other unrelated domains (notably in mathematics, where a scalar value is an identifiable object that remains constant in relation with some operations and independant of its context, unlike functions, differential or aggragating operators...scalar values may be sacalr only in some bases of the numeric domain), that using the terms "code point" is certainly more specific, less ambiguous, and will avoid more confusions with these application domains (including for example with algorithms used to format integer, real or complex numbers into encoded text, as used in localisation librabries like ICU wirh additional CLDR data...) 2013/9/18 Stephan Stiller <[email protected]> > On 9/18/2013 12:02 AM, Stephan Stiller wrote: > > That still doesn't mean surrogates are "used by UTF-16" > > => 'That still doesn't mean surrogate* code point*s are "used by UTF-16"' >
