- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2026 06:19:58 -0400
- To: public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org
Yes, that's part of the weirdness of the request. Turtle is UTF-8. RDF literals are Unicode character strings. UTF-16 doesn't appear at all. The request is to require Turtle processors, which may not use UTF-16 anywhere, to recognize UTF-16 surrogate pairs and turn them into Unicode characters. So it's not a requirement for Turtle processors to use UTF-16, just to recognize UTF-16 surrogate pairs as an alternative escape for Unicode characters that are not in the BMP. Which is weird because Turtle already has a better escape mechanism for these characters. peter On 4/30/26 5:18 AM, James Anderson wrote: > the notion of surrogate pairs exists for utf-16 only. > >> On 30. Apr 2026, at 00:56, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I don't believe that this is at all what is being decided or even discussed. >> >> peter >> >> On 4/29/26 5:24 PM, James Anderson wrote: >>> is the working group's intent to retain the restriction, that documents be encoded as utf-8 or to relax that restriction to permit utf-16? >>> --- >>> james anderson | james@dydra.com | https://dydra.com >> >> > > --- > james anderson | james@dydra.com | https://dydra.com > > >
Received on Thursday, 30 April 2026 10:20:03 UTC