Encoding/Use of pontial unpaired UTF-16 surrogate pair specifiers
Shawn.Steele at microsoft.com
Sat Jan 30 18:45:18 CST 2016
Why do you need illegal unicode code points?
From: Unicode [mailto:unicode-bounces at unicode.org] On Behalf Of J Decker
Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2016 6:40 AM
To: unicode at unicode.org
Subject: Encoding/Use of pontial unpaired UTF-16 surrogate pair specifiers
I do see that the code points D800-DFFF should not be encoded in any UTF format (UTF8/32)...
UTF8 has a way to define any byte that might otherwise be used as an encoding byte.
UTF16 has no way to define a code point that is D800-DFFF; this is an issue if I want to apply some sort of encryption algorithm and still have the result treated as text for transmission and encoding to other string systems.
http://www.azillionmonkeys.com/qed/unicode.html lists Unicode
private areas Area-A which is U-F0000:U-FFFFD and Area-B which is U-100000:U-10FFFD which will suffice for a workaround for my purposes....
For my purposes I will implement F0000-F0800 to be (code point minus
D800 and then add F0000 (or vice versa)) and then encoded as a surrogate pair... it would have been super nice of unicode standards included a way to specify code point even if there isn't a language character assigned to that point.
does say: "Q: Are there any 16-bit values that are invalid?
A: Unpaired surrogates are invalid in UTFs. These include any value in the range D800 to DBFF not followed by a value in the range DC00 to DFFF, or any value in the range DC00 to DFFF not preceded by a value in the range D800 to DBFF "
and "Q: How do I convert an unpaired UTF-16 surrogate to UTF-8?
A different issue arises if an unpaired surrogate is encountered when converting ill-formed UTF-16 data. By represented such an unpaired surrogate on its own as a 3-byte sequence, the resulting UTF-8 data stream would become ill-formed. While it faithfully reflects the nature of the input, Unicode conformance requires that encoding form conversion always results in valid data stream. Therefore a converter must treat this as an error. "
I did see these older messages... (not that they talk about this much just more info) http://www.unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2013-m01/0204.html
More information about the Unicode