- From: Jonathan Kew <jonathan@jfkew.plus.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 21:37:28 +0000
- To: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
On 23 Jan 2012, at 07:14, Mathias Bynens wrote: >> I personally think that bugs should be filed on the other UAs about the >> UTF-16 behavior and the spec should be clarified to disallow it, but of >> course I'm biased. ;) > > Anyone else? > FWIW, I agree with Boris (that it is a bug for a UA to accept \xxxx\yyyy, where xxxx and yyyy represent a high/low surrogate pair, and treat this as being the UTF-16 representation of a single non-BMP character). The CSS3 Syntax spec (and CSS2, for that matter) is quite explicit that a backslash-hex escape stands for _an ISO 10646 character_; it does not stand for _a UTF-16 code unit_, which is something fundamentally different. (But of course I also share Boris's bias!) JK
Received on Monday, 23 January 2012 21:38:03 UTC