- From: Mathias Bynens <mathias@qiwi.be>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 14:41:23 +0100
- To: Jonathan Kew <jonathan@jfkew.plus.com>
- Cc: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 2:01 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote: > I so no reason why it should be. Well, all existing engines (except Gecko) already support this, and have for years. Pave The Cowpaths, etc. > This looks suspiciously like an (inadvertent?) artifact of the use of UTF-16 as the encoding form for strings within the browser. It does, but does that matter? >> Should the spec be changed to reflect reality? > > CSS backslash-hexadecimal character escapes are supposed to represent ISO 10646 character codes, *NOT* UTF-16 code units. > > As such, I think interpreting "\d834\df06" as the character U+1D306 should be considered a bug, and the spec should perhaps be clarified with a note explicitly prohibiting this behavior. As it stands, it probably is a bug, but rather than dismiss it we could embrace it and spec it in a way that is backwards compatible with these implementations — remember, we’re talking about *all browsers except Firefox* here. Something like: “If a UTF-16 surrogate pair is found, decode it as such; else, proceed as usual.”
Received on Thursday, 12 January 2012 14:13:40 UTC