From: | Sam Mason <sam(at)samason(dot)me(dot)uk> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [rfc] unicode escapes for extended strings |
Date: | 2009-04-16 19:21:37 |
Message-ID: | 20090416192137.GU12225@frubble.xen.chris-lamb.co.uk |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marko Kreen | 2009-04-16 19:32:16 | Re: [rfc] unicode escapes for extended strings |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2009-04-16 19:04:37 | Re: [rfc] unicode escapes for extended strings |