Is there difference from more simple implementation?

Hi!

I'm using shorter and simplier implementation from there: https://gist.github.com/lihnux/2aa4a6f5a9170974f6aa

function toUTF8Array(str) {
    let utf8 = [];
    for (let i = 0; i < str.length; i++) {
        let charcode = str.charCodeAt(i);
        if (charcode < 0x80) utf8.push(charcode);
        else if (charcode < 0x800) {
            utf8.push(0xc0 | (charcode >> 6),
                      0x80 | (charcode & 0x3f));
        }
        else if (charcode < 0xd800 || charcode >= 0xe000) {
            utf8.push(0xe0 | (charcode >> 12),
                      0x80 | ((charcode>>6) & 0x3f),
                      0x80 | (charcode & 0x3f));
        }
        // surrogate pair
        else {
            i++;
            // UTF-16 encodes 0x10000-0x10FFFF by
            // subtracting 0x10000 and splitting the
            // 20 bits of 0x0-0xFFFFF into two halves
            charcode = 0x10000 + (((charcode & 0x3ff)<<10)
                      | (str.charCodeAt(i) & 0x3ff));
            utf8.push(0xf0 | (charcode >>18),
                      0x80 | ((charcode>>12) & 0x3f),
                      0x80 | ((charcode>>6) & 0x3f),
                      0x80 | (charcode & 0x3f));
        }
    }
    return utf8;
}

Can you say, should I switch to your implementation and why?

Compare the linked gist with the utf8.js implementation and the Encoding Standard to identify behavioral differences, including edge cases. Document whether the shorter implementation is equivalent and explain when users should choose utf8.js; completion is a clear answer to the question.