On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 10:35:29AM -0500, Jungshik Shin wrote:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2002, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
P.S. Does utf8 support surrogates? Surrogate pair is definitely the
No. Surrogates are solely for UTF-16. There's no need for surrogates
in UTF-8 -- if we wanted to encode U+D800 using UTF-8, we *could* --
BUT we should not. Encoding U+D800 as UTF-8 should not be attempted,
the whole surrogate space is a discontinuity in the Unicode code point
space reserved for the evils of UTF-16.
I can't agree more with you on this. Unfortunately, people
at Oracle and PeopleSoft think differently. Actually, what happened was
that they made a serious design mistake by making their DBs understand
only UTF-8 up to 3byte long although when they added UTF-8 support,
it was plainly clear that ISO 10646/Unicode was not just for BMP.
When planes beyond BMP finally began to be filled with actual characters,
they came up with that stupid idea of using two 3-byte-long UTF-8 units
(for surrogate pairs) to represent those characters.
Yeah. I saw that sorry mess. It looked a lot like a bunch of
engineers unable to to admit that they made a mistake, and a bunc of
managers unable to admit that they shipped broken products to
A lot of people on Unicode mailing list voiced a very strong
and technically solid objection against this, but Oracle and PeopleSoft
went on to publish DUTR #26: Compatibility Encoding Scheme for UTF-16
(CESU-8) (http://www.unicode.org/unicode/reports/tr26). Does Encode
need to support this monster? I hope not.
Definitely not. If Oracle/PeopleSoft want to support their own
made-up encoding with Perl, they are welcome to write Encode::CESU8...
$jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/
# There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'.
# It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen