Re: [rfc] unicode escapes for extended strings

On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 03:04:37PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Sam Mason wrote:
> >Are you sure that this handling of surrogates is correct?  The best
> >answer I've managed to find on the Unicode consortium's site is:
> >
> >  http://unicode.org/faq/utf_bom.html#utf16-7
> >
> >it says:
> >
> >  They are invalid in interchange, but may be freely used internal to an
> >  implementation.
> 
> It says that about non-characters, not about the use of surrogate pairs, 
> unless I am misreading it.

No, I think you're probably right and I was misreading it.  I went
back and forth several times to explicitly check I was interpreting
this correctly and still failed to get it right.  Not sure what I was
thinking and sorry for the hassle Marko!

I've already asked on the Unicode list about this (no response yet), but
I have a feeling I'm getting worked up over nothing.

--  Sam  http://samason.me.uk/