Re: explicit 20 bit Unicode range limit

From: Michael Everson ([email protected])
Date: Wed Jan 27 1999 - 04:31:49 EST

Next message: Michael Everson: "Re: Myanmar (Burmese) [accepted for future inclusion]"
Previous message: Venkatesh Murthy N G: "_UNICODE"
Next in thread: [email protected]: "Re: explicit 20 bit Unicode range limit"
Maybe reply: [email protected]: "Re: explicit 20 bit Unicode range limit"
Maybe reply: Michael Everson: "Re: explicit 20 bit Unicode range limit"
Maybe reply: Kenneth Whistler: "Re: explicit 20 bit Unicode range limit"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

Rick said:

>What actual problems does the proposal solve that outweigh all the required
>paperwork? What's wrong with using a 32-bit container if you want to
>normalize UTF-16 to avoid surrogate encoding?

Isn't that what I said earlier about 10646.

One would rather see implementations than more theory.

--
Michael Everson, Everson Gunn Teoranta ** http://www.indigo.ie/egt
15 Port Chaeimhghein �ochtarach; Baile �tha Cliath 2; �ire/Ireland
Guth�n: +353 1 478-2597 ** Facsa: +353 1 478-2597 (by arrangement)
27 P�irc an Fh�ithlinn;  Baile an Bh�thair;  Co. �tha Cliath; �ire

Next message: Michael Everson: "Re: Myanmar (Burmese) [accepted for future inclusion]"
Previous message: Venkatesh Murthy N G: "_UNICODE"
Next in thread: [email protected]: "Re: explicit 20 bit Unicode range limit"
Maybe reply: [email protected]: "Re: explicit 20 bit Unicode range limit"
Maybe reply: Michael Everson: "Re: explicit 20 bit Unicode range limit"
Maybe reply: Kenneth Whistler: "Re: explicit 20 bit Unicode range limit"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:44 EDT