[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: lynx-dev LYLowerCase EBCDIC Crash [PATCH]
From: |
pg |
Subject: |
Re: lynx-dev LYLowerCase EBCDIC Crash [PATCH] |
Date: |
Mon, 22 Oct 2001 09:18:03 -0600 (MDT) |
In a recent note, Thomas E. Dickey said:
> Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 11:11:08 -0400 (EDT)
>
> > > would a 0x00 be legal following the 0x80? (If not, we could add a check
> > > for that special case).
> > >
> > I defer that one to the Unicode/UTF8/CJK/Big5 experts. Such a check
> > would be insurance for the multibyte cases, but might leave some
> > breakage for non-ASCII ISO8859 characters. Would a character with the
> > 0x80 bit set be legal at the end of an ISO8859 string?
>
> I don't think so (0x80 is a control character in ISO 8859). 0x80,0x00
> shouldn't appear embedded in UTF-8 either.
>
The problem is not only with 0x80, but with any character having the
high bit set. This includes ISO8859 letters with diacriticals
and all EBCDIC letters and digits.
-- gil
--
StorageTek
INFORMATION made POWERFUL
; To UNSUBSCRIBE: Send "unsubscribe lynx-dev" to address@hidden
- lynx-dev LYLowerCase EBCDIC Crash [PATCH], pg, 2001/10/22
- Re: lynx-dev LYLowerCase EBCDIC Crash [PATCH], Thomas E. Dickey, 2001/10/22
- Re: lynx-dev LYLowerCase EBCDIC Crash [PATCH], pg, 2001/10/22
- Re: lynx-dev LYLowerCase EBCDIC Crash [PATCH], Thomas E. Dickey, 2001/10/22
- Re: lynx-dev LYLowerCase EBCDIC Crash [PATCH], pg, 2001/10/22
- Re: lynx-dev LYLowerCase EBCDIC Crash [PATCH], Thomas E. Dickey, 2001/10/22
- Re: lynx-dev LYLowerCase EBCDIC Crash [PATCH], pg, 2001/10/22
- Re: lynx-dev LYLowerCase EBCDIC Crash [PATCH], Thomas E. Dickey, 2001/10/22
- Re: lynx-dev LYLowerCase EBCDIC Crash [PATCH],
pg <=
- Re: lynx-dev LYLowerCase EBCDIC Crash [PATCH], Thomas E. Dickey, 2001/10/22
Re: lynx-dev LYLowerCase EBCDIC Crash [PATCH], pg, 2001/10/22