[XML-SIG] Re: Issues with Unicode type

[Martin v. Loewis]

"Fred L. Drake, Jr." <fdrake@acm.org> writes:

> Martin v. Loewis writes:
>  > I'd recommend to place a fairly elaborate text with Unicode
>  > literals. This can mention the two forms of Python builds while
>  > explaining why len(u"\U00xxyyyy") might be 2.
> 
> I presume you're referring to the language reference, section 2.4.1,
> which covers all string literals?

Actually, I'd add a section 2.4.3, "Unicode literals", which logical
fits there (IMO) after the concatenation section (actually,
concatenation of Unicode and non-Unicode literals is underspecified,
too...)

For 2.4.3, the \N notation should get more prominent notation. It is
probably not appropriate to list all accepted character names, but
referring to the relevant database
(http://www.unicode.org/Public/3.0-Update/UnicodeData-3.0.0.txt - I
*think*; I'm not sure which version was used to generate the 2.2 data
- that ought to be documented).

Regards,
Martin