Geoff wrote:
> However it seems to me that given
> the apparent need for immense numbers of codepoints, we shouldn't be trying
> to get them all into the Unicode set - they should be in 10646, and thus
> available to people that need them.
In reply I note that the Unicode Standard and ISO 10646 are
intentionally aligned and continue to maintain exactly the
same encoding content. Characters encoded in one are characters encoded
in the other.
UTF-16 (Universal Transformation Format -16) of ISO 10646, the
mechanism which enables encoding of up to 1048576 (1024x1024)
codepoints (U-00010000 to U-0010FFFF) by pairwise usage of
U+D800..U+DBFF and U+DC00..U+DFFF, is also present (under a
different name, but with identical usage) in the Unicode Standard
2.0.
Any characters which are encoded using the UTF-16 mechanism (rather
than the Basic Multilingual Plane == BMP) in ISO 10646 will also
be encoded identically in the Unicode Standard.
--Ken Whistler
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:31 EDT