Subject: Re: Towards a better description of the execution encoding
From: Corentin (corentin.jabot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2021-03-02 15:13:12
On Tue, Mar 2, 2021, 21:46 Peter Brett <pbrett_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I would like to know if there is consensus that producing mojibake is
> always a bug.
I think I jumped the gun again. This would be an excellent place to start
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: SG16 <sg16-bounces_at_[hidden]> On Behalf Of Jens Maurer via
> > Sent: 02 March 2021 20:45
> > To: sg16_at_[hidden]; Hubert Tong <hubert.reinterpretcast_at_[hidden]
> > Cc: Jens Maurer <Jens.Maurer_at_[hidden]>; Corentin <
> > Subject: Re: [SG16] Towards a better description of the execution
> > EXTERNAL MAIL
> > On 02/03/2021 10.35, Corentin via SG16 wrote:
> > > My intent is to say " The standard assumes that all strings are
> > interpreted by local specific functions as being encoded by the execution
> > encoding and if that's not the case, you will get mojibake or any other
> > behavior that may be the result of your input not being interpreted
> > correctly"
> > Why do we have to say anything here, beyond possibly clarifying the
> > locale-dependent functions such as isalpha that they're not talking
> > about a character set (or characters), but about an encoding of such?
> > The fact that we've divorced the literal encoding from the execution
> > encoding is exactly because they are entirely unrelated, as sad as
> > that may be. "Unrelated" means no constraints, and we don't need to
> > spend text in the standard (beyond a note or two) specifying the
> > absence of restrictions.
> > Any time the introduction of limited constraints was brought up here
> > in the past month, a real-world counterexample was quickly found,
> > where we'd shy away from making it non-conforming.
> > Jens
> > --
> > SG16 mailing list
> > SG16_at_[hidden]
> > 16__;!!EHscmS1ygiU1lA!XR06PLcM-9I92I2-
> > gdzFqmYGmkxk9gD3N2SpU88VeYP9M3MDg21QInT21yWbgA$
SG16 list run by email@example.com