Re: Possible UTF-8 CJK Regressions in Terminal Emulators

[Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>]

> As surrogate pair was not handled well by UTF-16 converter,
> I've just fixed it too (not yet installed, I'm now adding
> comments in a code).  Untranslatable characters are decoded
> into UTF-8 form represented by the sequence of
> eight-bit-graphic/control characters (the same way as UTF-8
> decoding, thus we can use utf-8-post-read-conversion).  The
> UTF-16 encoder encodes such a sequence back to the origianl
> UTF-16 form.  So, now the UTF-16 support is at the same
> level as UTF-8.

Does that mean that some sequences of eight-bit-graphic/control are not
encoded into the corresponding raw bytes?
If so, that makes me a bit uneasy, since those special chars were
introduced specifically to handle things like binary input or
bad-byte-sequences and make sure that we at least preserve the raw bytes in
those cases.


        Stefan