On 4/16/09, Sam Mason <sam@samason.me.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 08:48:58PM +0300, Marko Kreen wrote:
> > Seems I'm bad at communicating in english,
>
>
> I hope you're not saying this because of my misunderstandings!
>
>
> > so here is C variant of
> > my proposal to bring \u escaping into extended strings. Reasons:
> >
> > - More people are familiar with \u escaping, as it's standard
> > in Java/C#/Python, probably more..
> > - U& strings will not work when stdstr=off.
> >
> > Syntax:
> >
> > \uXXXX - 16-bit value
> > \UXXXXXXXX - 32-bit value
> >
> > Additionally, both \u and \U can be used to specify UTF-16 surrogate
> > pairs to encode characters with value > 0xFFFF. This is exact behaviour
> > used by Java/C#/Python. (except that Java does not have \U)
>
>
> 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.
>
> I think this means they consider the handling of them you noted above,
> in other languages, to be an error.
It's up to UTF8 validator whether to consider non-characters as error.
--
marko
