On 15 May 2017, at 23:43, Richard Wordingham via Unicode <[email protected]> wrote: > > The problem with surrogates is inadequate testing. They're sufficiently > rare for many users that it may be a long time before an error is > discovered. It's not always obvious that code is designed for UCS-2 > rather than UTF-16.
While I don’t think we should spend too long debating the relative merits of UTF-8 versus UTF-16, I’ll note that that argument applies equally to both combining characters and indeed the underlying UTF-8 encoding in the first place, and that mistakes in handling both are not exactly uncommon. There are advantages to UTF-8 and advantages to UTF-16. Kind regards, Alastair. -- http://alastairs-place.net
