Re: [Json] Unpaired surrogates in JSON strings

[John Cowan <[e-mail]>]

"Martin J. Dürst" scripsit:

> But we should try to do whatever we can in the spec to make it perfectly
> clear that there are no good reasons whatsoever to actually do that.

That's a little stronger than the truth.  You can use Java(Script)
strings, which are sequences of arbitrary 16-bit code units, to
represent an immutable vector of unsigned integers bounded by 65535,
and I have actually done so.  However, it is not a good idea to do so
in open interchange.

> Any Unicode code point except high-surrogate and low-surrogate code
> points. In other words, the ranges of integers 0 to D7FF16 and E00016
> to 10FFFF16 inclusive. (See definition D76 in Section 3.9, Unicode
> Encoding Forms.)

Yes, we should use either "Unicode scalar value" or "Unicode 16-bit code
unit", depending on what we decide on.

-- 
That you can cover for the plentiful            John Cowan
and often gaping errors, misconstruals,         http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
and disinformation in your posts                [e-mail]
through sheer volume -- that is another misconception.  --Mike to Peter