[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: utf-8 encoding scheme

To: linux-utf8@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: utf-8 encoding scheme
From: Florian Weimer <fw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 22 Jul 2000 20:23:40 +0200
In-reply-to: "H. Peter Anvin"'s message of "12 Jul 2000 10:56:17 -0700"
References: <E136DkS-00053B-00@wisbech.cl.cam.ac.uk> <Pine.LNX.4.10.10006261642210.29611-100000@india.dharma.com> <8kibg1$g1a$1@cesium.transmeta.com>
Reply-to: linux-utf8@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: owner-linux-utf8@xxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/20.6

  "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> The alternate spelling
> 
> 	11000001 10001011
> 
> ... is not the character K <U+004B> but INVALID SEQUENCE.  One
> possible thing to do in a decoder is to emit U+FFFD SUBSTITUTION
> CHARACTER on encountering illegal sequences.

Is there any consensus whether to use one or two U+FFFD characters in
such situations? For example, what do Perl, Tcl and Java here?
-
Linux-UTF8:   i18n of Linux on all levels
Archive:      http://mail.nl.linux.org/lists/

Follow-Ups:
- Re: utf-8 encoding scheme
  - From: Larry Wall
- Substituting malformed UTF-8 sequences in a decoder
  - From: Markus Kuhn

References:
- Re: utf-8 encoding scheme
  - From: H. Peter Anvin

Prev by Date: Re: utf-8 encoding scheme
Next by Date: Re: utf-8 encoding scheme
Previous by thread: Re: utf-8 encoding scheme
Next by thread: Re: utf-8 encoding scheme
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread