Yeah, I'd re-read that section of the article and edited my post already to reflect this before I saw your reply.
My fault for reading the first proposed solution, thinking it was stupid for having the continuation bits the other way round, and skipping ahead to where I saw they'd inverted them and stopped reading at that point.
My fault for reading the first proposed solution, thinking it was stupid for having the continuation bits the other way round, and skipping ahead to where I saw they'd inverted them and stopped reading at that point.