Richard Wordingham wrote: > So it was still a legal way for a non-UTF-8-compliant process!
Anything is possible if you are non-compliant. You can encode U+263A with 9,786 FF bytes followed by a terminating FE byte and call that "UTF-8," if you are willing to be non-compliant enough. > Note for example that a compliant implementation of full upper-casing > shall convert the canonically equivalent strings <U+1FB3 GREEK SMALL > LETTER ALPHA WITH YPOGEGRAMMENI, U+0313 COMBINING COMMA ABOVE> and > <U+1F00 GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH PSILI, U+0345 COMBINING GREEK > YPOGEGRAMMENI> to the canonically inequivalent strings <U+0391 GREEK > CAPITAL LETTER ALPHA, U+0399 GREEK CAPITAL LETTER IOTA, U+0313> and > <U+1F08 GREEK CAPITAL LETTER ALPHA WITH PSILI, 0399 GREEK CAPITAL > LETTER IOTA>. A compliant Unicode process may not assume that this is > the right thing to do. (Or are some compliant Unicode processes > required to incorrectly believe that they are doing something they > mustn't do?) I'm afraid I don't get the analogy. -- Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org
