Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

Mr. Satori Tripcode

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-11 15:03

#1fXzap//
#1fXzap//
#1fXzap//
#1fXzap//
#1fXzap//
#1fXzap//
#1fXzap//
#1fXzap//
#1fXzap//
#1fXzap//
#1fXzap//
#1fXzap//
#1fXzap//
#1fXzap//
#1fXzap//
#1fXzap//
#1fXzap//
#1fXzap//
#1fXzap//
#1fXzap//
#1fXzap//
#1fXzap//
#1fXzap//
#1fXzap//
#1fXzap//
#1fXzap//
#1fXzap//
#1fXzap//
#1fXzap//
#1fXzap//
#1fXzap//

Name: !1354773682 2007-11-14 18:54

ITT: Alphabet fags 

Name: !0841327956 2007-11-14 18:54

ITT: Alphabet fags  

Name: !8550610352 2007-11-14 18:54

ITT: Alphabet fags   

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-15 5:09

>>25
Wow, what a big failure.

DO YOU WANT STATE?
UTF-8 doesn't have state. It has multibyte sequences. Lern 2... lern 2 lern.

DO YOU WANT MULTIPLE WAYS TO EXPRESS THE SAME CHARACTER?
There's only one way to express one character; needlessly long chains are to be considered illegal.

>>28
Which are not the same as the precombined character.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-15 5:23

>>44
Unicode does have state. For example, whether the current text should be right-to-left or left-to-right rendered, based on previous override characters. Or using combining characters to build up a full one.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-15 6:18

>>45
True, but the UTF-8 character encoding does not have encoding state itself.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-15 7:06

>>44
needlessly long
lol, what a precise definition. gb2 reading sicp, faggot.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-15 9:29

needlessly long:
   Longer than is needed.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-15 9:39

FYI, the term used in the RFC is overlong.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-15 14:00

needlessly long chains are to be considered illegal.
So composing a character with an accent from two codepoints is illegal when a codepoint that already combines the two is available? Sure thing, Anonymous.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-15 14:03

>>50
You are confusing layers. We're talking about UTF-8 representation of a Unicode character, not how to combine characters to form identical glyphs.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-15 14:20

>>51
Then just tell me, what is a "needlessly long chain" in UTF-8.

Name: wut !MhMRSATORI 2007-11-15 14:36

?!?

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-15 15:19

>>52
Using n bytes to encode a codepoint when it could be encoded with m bytes, where n > m.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-15 20:01

>>54
Please provide an example of that.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-15 20:44

11010000 10010110 = 11100000 11010000 10010110

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-16 7:27

>>56
Invalid UTF-8

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-16 11:24

>>56
1. Invalid UTF-8
2. You get a higher start offset the more bytes you use to specify the codepoint

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-16 11:52

2. You get a higher start offset the more bytes you use to specify the codepoint
You wish.

Name: !MhMRSATORI 2008-01-26 1:30

sage

Name: !MhMRSATORI 2008-06-23 11:57

proggit

Name: !MhMRSATORI 2008-06-23 11:58

/prog/

Name: !MhMRSATORI!A9hTOBBJKa7FFdt 2008-06-23 11:59

/prog/

Name: !8kh9fdWnmE!UES1SZmHcXS5pUi 2008-06-23 12:01

/prog/

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-06 11:35

The government walks over to e to   also leave and   go elsewhere and   form their own   and that their   text is correct   it would be   to have an   article with this   too I feel   like such a   horrible inconsistent browser.

Name: Mr. !MhMRSATORI 2010-04-06 16:32

s

Name: !MhMRSATORI 2010-08-04 15:59

Name: !WAHa.06x36 2010-08-04 16:00

x

Name: ​​​​​​​​​​ 2010-10-25 7:07

Name: Anonymous 2010-11-25 5:49

Name: Anonymous 2010-11-25 12:51

Name: Anus 2012-05-30 22:09

a

Name: Anus !MhMRSATORI 2012-05-30 22:10

b

Name: Anus2 !!wzbSqB/A+G0QPFf 2012-05-30 22:10

c

Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List