Corrigendum #9

Richard Wordingham richard.wordingham at
Tue Jun 3 02:31:46 CDT 2014

On Mon, 2 Jun 2014 23:21:38 -0700
David Starner <prosfilaes at> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 4:33 PM, Richard Wordingham
> <richard.wordingham at> wrote:
> > Using 99 = (3 +
> > 32 + 64) PUA characters, one can ape UTF-16 surrogates and encode:

> What's the point? If we can use the PUA, then we don't need the
> noncharacters; we can just use the PUA directly. If we have to play
> around with remapping them, they're pointless; they're no easier to
> use in that case then ESC or '\' or PUA characters.

A search for two 2-character string '\n' would also find a substring
of 4-character string 'a\\n'.  The PUA is in general not available for
general utilities to make special use of.


More information about the Unicode mailing list