@bobbydavid Thanks for re-stating what I'm saying. Re: "So why use such inflammatory and misleading language like "If you claim to support Unicode, you have to

@bobbydavid Thanks for re-stating what I'm saying. Re: "So why use such inflammatory and misleading language like "If you claim to support Unicode, you have to support NULL characters"?" I'm not trying to be "inflammatory" or "misleading". IMO (note: opinion), if a given API claims to support Unicode strings, but instead disallows certain Unicode characters from appearing in those strings, then, IMO, that API only partially supports Unicode strings. Others could have different opinions (evidently, you do). I don't know if handling all Unicode characters should be a requirement for an implementation to call itself "Unicode-compliant", but barring another standard, that seams reasonable to me. A better option IMO would be to have never included NULL in Unicode in the first place, since it is so widely used in system software as an end-of-string terminator. But that ship has sailed...