From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 69668 invoked by alias); 27 Jun 2018 06:53:46 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Received: (qmail 69643 invoked by uid 89); 27 Jun 2018 06:53:42 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mail-io0-f177.google.com Received: from mail-io0-f177.google.com (HELO mail-io0-f177.google.com) (209.85.223.177) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 27 Jun 2018 06:53:41 +0000 Received: by mail-io0-f177.google.com with SMTP id i23-v6so856217iog.10 for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2018 23:53:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=8f3CgmRXsiDzRQZpf5Wj639sCPU1q/5k8l9EyPCAQIY=; b=bjQAnSJ0c7xNm6L4DF86j1lgQBWOhZ+o0uWWTqC8uO80UFvg7lMkOXAnzNa4TZOHs5 gb2+6DJoqFOjKxPnI/LzP07n0ZOcEDFApP1WlXUMDHQTkKG9kVxMtsICw2H+sGAcnvuf CR3oW6QhKi0tcS0KS4QCYVACm1kxDjIaV+QT9Gi3wO04yIaoK2xeULF7IUyGz2tdIJhV fBOuVri7tJp3/nB83EjRXEjhq5xJ2+7U32AWtBtJTgtpiII8nLK707+4t5OptqKoK+oJ szElM3Gb8JXkh/WdBpipA9Utbebn0O30dbS78vf9G6PERnQfal1t/ycl8sZHjsf6FdQa hiUQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:a4f:f87:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Tue, 26 Jun 2018 23:53:38 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <1183751257.20180621042620@yandex.ru> <5B3045B1.4080504@tlinx.org> From: Lee Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 09:34:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: UTF-8 character encoding To: cygwin@cygwin.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2018-06/txt/msg00296.txt.bz2 On 6/26/18, Michael Enright wrote: > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 11:33 AM, Lee wrote: >> I'm still trying to figure utf-8 out, but it seems to me that 0x0 - >> 0xff is part of the utf-8 encoding. > > I don't see how you arrived at this. I screwed up trying to do hex in my head. For whatever reason I didn't want to write 0 - 127 > An initial byte of 0xFF is not > the initial byte of any valid UTF-8 byte sequence. And it doesn't > conform with the statement you have later: right, I screwed up :) > The standards such as IETF RFC-3629 are easy enough to read, so I > recommend using them and citing them to others instead of trying to > summarize. Thanks for the RFC reference - I hadn't come across that one yet. Lee -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple