Re: windows-1252

[Erik van der Poel <erik@vanderpoel.org>]

Markus Scherer wrote:
> Unassigned code points are of course allowed. Without double-checking
> the tables which Mike pointed to in his requests, I think what Frank
> alluded to is how Windows treats unassigned codes in its SBCS
> charsets: It usually roundtrips unassigned bytes xx to/from Unicode
> U+00xx, rather than mapping unassigned codes to some SUBstitution
> character, and some but not all published tables reflect this.

The current registration of windows-1252 points to a document that lists 
those codepoints as unassigned. It does not matter what other tables say 
about them. If an implementation decides to round-trip these unassigned 
codepoints, they do so for particular reasons. But that does not change 
the fact that those codepoints are actually unassigned, and that people 
should not use them.

Erik