This is the mail archive of the
xsl-list@mulberrytech.com
mailing list .
Re: CJK UTF-16 test
- To: xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com
- Subject: Re: [xsl] CJK UTF-16 test
- From: Benjamin Franz <snowhare at nihongo dot org>
- Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 09:00:53 -0800 (PST)
- Reply-To: xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com
On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, David Carlisle wrote:
>
> > as I don't have any parser that will swallow UTF-16.
>
> utf-16 support is _mandated_ by the XML spec. If you have anything that
> calls itself an XML parser it must be able to read utf-16.
XML does NOT support UTF-16 since UTF-16 includes the surrogates - that is
in fact what *distinguishes* it from UCS-2. That the XML 1.0 spec ('scuse
me, 'Recommendation') *says* that it requires support for UTF-16 is in
fact an error in the text since it explicitly forbids surrogates (aka
UTF-16) in the allowed char range spec. It is like saying 'We require
Japanese support, except you can't use *any* Japanese.' It's a nonsense
statement.
"Character Range
[2] Char ::= #x9 | #xA | #xD | [#x20-#xD7FF] | [#xE000-#xFFFD] |
[#x10000-#x10FFFF]
/* any Unicode character, excluding the surrogate blocks, FFFE,
and FFFF. */
The mechanism for encoding character code points into bit
patterns may vary from entity to entity. All XML processors must accept
the UTF-8 and UTF-16 encodings of 10646;
^
|
The Error. What it actually requires is a
specifified subset of UTF-8 and UCS-2 encodings.
--
Benjamin Franz
"Real programmers can write assembly code in any language."
-- Larry Wall
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list