[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: accents
From: |
Andreas Schwab |
Subject: |
Re: accents |
Date: |
Mon, 16 May 2011 00:38:47 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) |
Chet Ramey <address@hidden> writes:
> On 5/10/11 9:17 AM, Greg Wooledge wrote:
>
>> In yours, however, it is 0x65 0xcc 0x81 which is U+0065 LATIN SMALL
>> LETTER E followed by U+0301 COMBINING ACUTE ACCENT.
>
> That's not valid UTF-8, since UTF-8 requires that the shortest sequence
> be used to encode a character.
0x65 0xcc 0x81 is the correct UTF-8 encoding for the two character
sequence U+0065 U+0301.
> The general problem with combining
> characters still exists (the one in the message I referenced in an
> earlier reply), but this case has more to do with Mac OS X and its use
> of both precomposed and decomposed UTF-8 than anything.
There is no such thing as "precomposed UTF-8" and "decomposed UTF-8".
UTF-8 is an encoding of Unicode, and both NFD and NFC are valid forms of
Unicode.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, address@hidden
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."
- accents, Thomas De Contes, 2011/05/09
- Re: accents, Greg Wooledge, 2011/05/09
- Re: accents, Thomas De Contes, 2011/05/09
- Re: accents, Greg Wooledge, 2011/05/10
- Re: accents, Andreas Schwab, 2011/05/10
- Re: accents, Chet Ramey, 2011/05/10
- Re: accents, Chet Ramey, 2011/05/15
- Re: accents,
Andreas Schwab <=
- Re: accents, Chet Ramey, 2011/05/15
- Re: accents, Andreas Schwab, 2011/05/16
- Re: accents, Chet Ramey, 2011/05/15
Re: accents, Chet Ramey, 2011/05/16