[erlang-questions] byte() vs. char() use in documentation

[David Mercer]

On Tuesday, May 03, 2011, Raimo Niskanen wrote:

> I repeat again. The programmer decides what the bytes mean. The list
> [0,0,16#21,16#2b] e.g would mean "angstrom sign" if the encoding is
> UTF-32 big endian. And that is a valid iolist.
> But [16#212b] is not.

Out of curiosity, why does

	unicode:characters_to_binary([16#212b], {utf32, big}).

return the UTF-8 representation of Å (Angstrom sign) and not the big-endian
UTF-32 like I expected?