[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Partyin' like it's 1999

• To: "'Derek Denny-Brown'" <derekdb@m...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: Partyin' like it's 1999
• From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>
• Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 21:30:12 +0100
• In-reply-to: <075E1759251CCB49ABF05D8F742AFE2703EEFCE5@R...>
• Thread-index: AcS8Mzp5hwegyX9QQxaPrfhMAEq0KgAF3abQAAYTzUA=

> 
> XML 1.0 had surrogate pairs. 

I don't think that's a fair statement. XML 1.0 has Unicode characters with
codepoints above 65535, but surrogate pairs are an artefact of the chosen
encoding and XML distances itself from that. You're only exposed to
surrogate pairs if you choose to manipulate your XML in a language such as
Java that exposes such characters as surrogate pairs. That's then a Java
problem, not an XML problem.


Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/ 

• References:
  • RE: Partyin' like it's 1999
    • From: "Derek Denny-Brown" <derekdb@m...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Partyin' like it's 1999
• Next by Date: RE: After XQuery, are we done?
• Previous by thread: RE: Partyin' like it's 1999
• Next by thread: RE: Partyin' like it's 1999
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread