2015-05-09 11:59 GMT+02:00 Richard Wordingham < [email protected]>:
> No, D82 merely requires that each 16-bit value be a valid UTF-16 code > unit. Unicode strings, and Unicode 16-bit strings in particular, need > not be well-formed. For x = 8, 16, 32, a 'UTF-x string', equivalently a > 'valid UTF-x string', is one that is well-formed in UTF-x. > > > I was right, You and Richard were wrong. > > I stand by my explanation. I wrote it with TUS open at the definitions > by my side. > Except that you are explaining something else. You are speaking about "Unicode strings" which are bound to a given UTF, I was speaking ONLY about "16-bit strings" which were NOT bound to Unicode (and did not have to). So TUS is compeltely not relevant here I have NOT written "Unicode 16-bit strings", only "16-bit strings" and I clearly opposed the two DISTINCT concepts in the SAME sentence so that no confusion was possible.
