One of the advantages about UTF8 that I've repeatedly heard touted was that it was NOT restricted to 10FFFF, and indeed could handle the entire 32-bit codespace when such codes were eventually allocated. This was often used as an argument against other encodings, such as UTF16, that didn't have the same property. Tony Hansen tony@att.com Mark Davis wrote: > Yes, they have; and it is quoted in the UTF-32 TR. Moreover, it is of > course safest if the RFC UTF-8 is restricted to 10FFFF, since any > higher values will not convert to UTF-16, and could even cause > security problems if converted incorrectly (e.g. overlaying legitimate > codes).Received on Friday, 12 April 2002 11:15:50 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Monday, 12 September 2005 15:53:26 GMT