Unicode utf-8 doesn't do back-and-forth?

[Mike C. Fletcher]

Well, that answers that question, I suppose. No clue what a surrogate is 
for, but I suppose there's no point including them in a 
character-classes set if they're designed specifically as unicode 
internal chars.

Thanks Martin,
Mike

Martin v. Loewis wrote:
> "Mike C. Fletcher" <mcfletch at rogers.com> writes:
...
>>I was under the impression that utf-8 was supposed to be able to
>>support any Unicode character with full back/forth translation. 
> 
> 
> That impression is incorrect: Surrogates (as reserved in Unicode, for
> use with UTF-16) are special.
> 
> Regards,
> Martin

...