I just started browsing this list again after a long absence...
* Jean-Michel POURE <jm(dot)poure(at)freesurf(dot)fr> [020221 18:39]:
> 5) Surrogate pairs
> I heard PostgreSQL did not support surrogate pairs. Is this a problem of
> surrogate pair? Just my 0.02 cents, I know very little about UTF-8.
Surrogate pairs only exist in UTF-16. They are used to access
characters which are not on the BMP.
UTF-8 has a different way to encode these characters. Encoding
surrogates in UTF-8 is invalid and should be rejected by any
application receiving a UTF-8 stream (actually, they used to be just
irregular, but starting with Unicode 3.2, they will be illegal).
Regarding your sequence E3/82/27, it cannot be valid under any scheme.
UTF-8 is done in a way that any subsequent byte is equal or above
0x80. For E3 in particular, the 3rd byte has to be between 80 and BF.
Anyway "UTF-8 encoded surrogates" can only start with ED, so that's
not your problem here.
Hope this helps.
email: patrice hede à islande org
www : http://www.islande.org/
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Hannu Krosing||Date: 2002-02-21 18:21:21|
|Subject: Re: PostgreSQL 8.0 ??|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2002-02-21 18:05:25|
|Subject: Re: elog() proposal |
pgsql-odbc by date
|Next:||From: Laurette Cisneros||Date: 2002-02-21 19:28:50|
|Subject: Re: time problem with postgres ODBC driver (fwd)|
|Previous:||From: Dave Page||Date: 2002-02-21 14:13:06|
|Subject: Re: ADO Max Records and Visual Basic|