Re: UTF-8 validation

["Cezary H. Noweta" <chn@...>]

On 2015-12-10 00:55, Coda Highland wrote:

> Then I submit that your function would be better named "normalize"
> than "validate" since its intent in the workflow is to provide you
> with a safe, canonical form of the string, and it just also lets you
> know if it encountered problems along the way.

The function does not play with normalization nor does not want to 
``canonicalize'' strings. The simple process [ill-formed] => 
[well-formed] can be named validation, I think. I had in mind security 
reasons: for example SQL server does not close a string after it 
encountered some strange non-canonical coptic quote, but rather after it 
have seen "'" (0x27), which can be expressed in many ways (one 
well-formed and many ill-formed).

-- best regards

Cezary H. Noweta