Subject: Re: [xsl] CJK UTF-16 test From: "Michael Beddow" <mbnospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 19:54:57 +0100 |
I think this misunderstanding is mostly down to an unfortunate turn of phrase in the comment on the relevant production rule in the spec. /* any Unicode character, excluding the surrogate blocks ... */ I can see why people assume that "excluding" *qualifies* the phrase "any Unicode character", whereas in fact it simply *explains* it, since values in the surrogate blocks are by definition NOT Unicode characters, though they may be part of a sequence that represents such a character. Michael ------------------------------------------ Michael Beddow XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] CJK UTF-16 test, David_N_Bertoni | Thread | Re: [xsl] Re: using format-number(), ericmacau |
RE: [xsl] xml to html paragraphing, Chris Bayes | Date | RE: [xsl] xsl filtering duplicate n, Tom Melkonian |
Month |