3 ms·
"Unicode (ie. the standard set forth by the unicode consortium) has nothing to say about encoding." Yes it does. The UTF-8/16/32 encodings are defined in the U
by captaincrowbar 12y ago
"Unicode (ie. the standard set forth by the unicode consortium) has nothing to say about encoding."
Yes it does. The UTF-8/16/32 encodings are defined in the Unicode standard (chapter 3.9, page 89), they're not some kind of aftermarket add-on.
"UTF-8 has the possibility of having encoding errors, where things like UTF-32 do not."
Also not true. The set of valid Unicode code points is the same regardless of the encoding (0-0xd7ff and 0xe000-0x10ffff); anything outside those two ranges is just as invalid in UTF-32 as its UTF-8 encoded equivalent would be. A stream containing nothing but 0xff bytes, for example, would be illegal regardless of which UTF you tried to interpret it as.
- ninkendo 12y ago> Yes it does. The UTF-8/16/32 encodings are defined in the Unicode standard (chapter 3.9, page 89), they're not some kind of aftermarket add-on. Fair enough, but would you not agree that the word is overloaded? The fact that a few encodings are listed in the Unicode standard doesn't make it ok to wave your hand and call it all "Unicode" in essays like these where it very much matters what actual encoding you're talking about. If you mean UTF-8, stay UTF-8, etc.